6.Defense Closing Arguments — Mark R. Fremgen and Raymond L. Edelstein

MR. FREMGEN: Thank you, very much. Can you hear me? Okay. Sorry about that. I don't know if you're familiar with Sherlock Holmes. I tend to like Sherlock Holmes novels and there's a novel called the Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes. And it's actually kind of a compilation of stories, and one of the stories is called the Silver Blaze.

And if you're familiar with Sherlock Holmes and Sherlock Holmes stories, there's two main characters. There's Sherlock Holmes, who is the intelligent private detective, and there's Dr. Watson, his sidekick, who he often has do the grunt work. Dr. Watson goes and collects statements from witnesses, talks to the police. Dr. Watson is the one who is, essentially, doing all the legwork.

And in the Silver Blaze, Dr. Watson goes and talks to all of the witnesses and the police officer. And he comes back to -- to Holmes, who has a tendency to sit there and puff on his pipe while he's listening to Dr. Watson, and he starts puffing away as Dr. Watson explains and runs down, this is what we know. We know this, we know this, we know this. And as he's talking, Sherlock Holmes interrupts him and says, well, what about the dog?

Watson doesn't understand, and just continues to keep reciting what he's learned from the investigation. And he be -- begins to continue to recite the investigation. And, again, one -- Holmes interrupts and says, well, what about the dog?

Finally, Watson says, Holmes, what do you mean, what about the dog? And Holmes says, what did the dog do? Watson starts sifting through his notes and turns to Holmes and says, the dog didn't do anything. And Holmes says, there -- there you have it. I know who's the killer. The killer is a person the dog knows.

Essentially, what Holmes -- The story in -- in Silver Blaze is that Holmes was able to determine that it's not necessarily what you know, it's not necessarily what you see and what you hear, sometimes it's what you don't see and what you don't hear that's as important. And that's something that I wanted to touch upon in this case.

There's a lot in this case that we don't know, there's a lot in this case we don't see, and there's a lot in this case that we don't hear. Much has been talked about DNA, and the State focuses on DNA in their, uh, closing. They talk about it in the trial. They have witnesses -- several different witnesses that explain what DNA is. Sher -- uh, Sherry Culhane, Nick Stahlke. DNA is a very important aspect of this case.

But what -- what we know is that they tested over 180 items, over 500 items submitted to the crime lab, not all for DNA, but items individually. What we do know about the DNA is that none of it matches Brendan Dassey.

We do know that there are handcuffs and leg irons that were found in Steven Avery's residence. The same handcuffs and leg irons that the State brought out to show you. The same ones that have Steven Avery's DNA on them. But nothing with Brendan Dassey. Or Teresa Halbach for that matter. There is no evidence of DNA matching Brendan Dassey on any of the evidence that's submitted to this Court, to you jurors to consider.

Nothing on the rifle. The rifle that was used, according to the State, according to the witness, to shoot Teresa Halbach. There is blood in Steven Avery's house. They find it on the molding. But that's not Brendan Dassey's. They find it in his bathroom. But that, as well, is not Brendan Dassey's.

We do know that they decided not to test certain items. The creepers. Now, the creepers seem to be a pretty significant piece of evidence for the State. But what we do not hear and do not see is any evidence that suggests the - ereepers were actually used by Brendan Dassey.

Mr. Fallon mentions in his closing argument that this is how it happened. He analogizes it to a funeral procession. Using the creeper to move the body from one place to another. But there's no blood found on the creeper. And, yet, as important a piece of evidence that this creeper apparently is, if it's brought up by the State as being the item that moved this body to the burn pit, why is it not tested for DNA? The answer we received from Sherry -- Sherry Culhane was, no one asked her to. No one asked her to test. it for DNA.

She looked for blood. That made sense, because the theory of the State's case is that this piece of. evidence, this creeper, about three- four-feet long with wheels, was used to wheel Teresa Halbach to the burn pit. Yet, they decide not to even test the creeper for DNA. The knives. She indicated that they received a number of knives. The police went through Steven Avery's house, took out every knife in the kitchen, sent the items down to the crime lab. The crime lab looked for blood and that was it. There was no blood on them. So they stopped. Why? They were told -- they were not told to test for DNA.

Now, State points out during the trial when asked questions of Sherry Culhane, well, could it have been wiped clean? And she said, sure. Would you have been able to obtain DNA if it had been wiped clean? Probably not. But the bullet would -- had no visible blood, and she talked about how they washed the bullet to be able to tell if there was DNA, and that they did find DNA. Teresa Halbach's DNA. So it is possible. Why did they choose not to wash the knives? They chose not to.

Brendan's jeans. They had bleach on them. They appeared to be a significant piece of evidence. The State pulled them out, showed you the jeans again. When they tested it, they found no blood. If he were crouched down on the ground, as was presented to you by one of the State's witnesses, why isn't there blood? They could have tested for DNA. But, again, they chose not to. Didn't find the blood. They chose not to test.

And the hairs. Again, they chose not to test. It's too difficult. Too much.

They went through yards and yards of soil. You saw the pictures. Three, four, five crime lab technicians digging through the soil to find minute pieces of bone and teeth, which they found. The box that Mr. Fallon referred to, showed you the picture of, they found minute pieces of bone by sifting inch by inch, piece by piece through the dirt.

But the officer said it was just too difficult to go through hundreds or thousands of hairs in a vacuum. Again, that was their choice not to fur -- fully investigate and fully corroborate Brendan Dassey's statement.

The shell casings on the garage floor and the Rambler hood. If you recall, I believe that the first technician from the crime lab, Mr. John Ertl, came, testified, indicated that when he arrove (phonetic) -- when he arrived at the, uh, Avery Salvage Yard, the first thing he noted with the Rav 4 was that it might be, um -- it might be -- excuse me -- it might need to be taken immediately to the crime lab because of the in climate weather.

One thing he also noted was that instead of processing the Rambler hood and the cardboard box on top of the Rav 4, they sent it down immediately with the Rav 4 to be processed, fingerprinted, checked for blood. Steven Avery has this cut finger and he's leaving blood throughout the entire Rav 4. Certainly there should be or may be some on the Rambler hood. Rather than process it on the field, they sent it to the crime lab.

That was the intent of the crime lab tech. Was it ever checked? No. DNA person indicated, no one asked me to. The fingerprint analysis. No one asked me to check for fingerprints. Two, apparently, vital pieces of information, pieces of evidence that one of their own crime lab technicians sent to the lab they chose not to test.

The bedding and the carpet. The bedding and the carpet is important to note that despite the statement where Brendan indicates in his statement to the officer that bedding was thrown into the fire, there was other bedding that was taken. The investigators felt it was necessary, important enough to look at, but not test it. The carpet. Never tested. Never checked.

The investigators -- Or excuse me. The crime lab, uh, witnesses all indicated, we would have checked had someone told us. So this investigation, they chose not to test items that didn't match with their theory. They'd already decided what happened in this case. They needed to prove their theory. The hairs, they're not going to help their theory. The vacuum's not going to help. Only time they would have looked for DNA is when there was blood or the bullet.

The fingerprint analyst testified that he did print Brendan. He also found a number of different prints throughout the Rav 4, including on the outside of the Rav 4 where, one, you would suspect, if they're placing brush, a wooden post, a hood, would have placed their hand upon it. And he was able to actually detect a print. He was able to actually process the print, save the print, and compare the print. And when he compared the print, didn't match the print they had for Brendan Dassey. None of the prints within the vehicle matched the print they have for Brendan Dassey. The fingerprint analyst indicated. that he could have checked the handcuffs. It was a smooth surface. Wasn't rusted. He could have looked for fingerprints, but no one asked them to.

Could have looked at the leg irons. Smooth surface. But no one asked them to.

The creeper. He could have looked at the creeper. If the creeper were used by Brendan Dassey, if Brendan Dassey actually helped use the creeper to move Teresa Halbach's body into the burn pit, then it could have been checked for fingerprints. But it never was because nobody asked them to.

The same with the Rambler hood and the rake and the shovel. If they were, according to the theory, using the rake and the shovel to move around the body parts in the burn pit, then that, too, could have been tested. But no one asked them to test it.

The State indicated in opening statements that this was the -- an investigation of historic proportions in the state of Wisconsin. From number of individuals involved, to the cost of the investigation, the resources that were used, yet they chose not to test anything that didn't fit into their theory of what they believe occurred.

What we don't see up to this point, and have not heard, is anything scientific that matches Brendan Dassey, that come -- that places Brendan Dassey at Steven Avery's at the date and time that Teresa Halbach is killed. No DNA. No fingerprints.

If Brendan Dassey is to be believed, and the statements he gave to the officer, then every detail in the statements must be corroborated. Not picking and choosing the ones that fit your theory. The State has picked and chosen those details and presented them to you that fit their theory. But there are a number of uncorroborated details and inconsistencies that they choose to ignore.

Brendan claims they used the creeper to move the body into the fire pit. That is what was, uh, presented by Mr. Fallon just rec -- just previous to my closing argument. Again, as I point out, there's no blood found on either of the two creepers. Never processed. Never asked to process for DNA. They would have tested it if someone had asked them to. An uncorroborated detail.

The throat. What's interesting to point out about the State's theory is the State indicates they believe, they've argued to you already, that Steven Avery first stabbed Teresa Halbach in the stomach and Brendan Dassey slit her throat. Nick Stahlke from the crime lab testified, and did indicate, that if a person were -- had their throat slit and were alive, it would likely cause what's called "blood splatter".

This is Steven Avery's bedroom. This is the bed. This is where the State indicates Teresa Halbach was lying with her arms pinned up against the headboard. The headboard, itself. A wooden dresser. A wall. And, if you could see further, the carpeting.

If, according to Nick -- according to Nick Stahlke, if she were alive when, according to Brendan's statement, he slit her throat, there would be blood throughout that bedroom. There'd be blood on the walls, on the headboard, on the posts, on the furnishings, on the carpet. No evidence has been presented to you that anything such as any blood, any splatter, any indication of blood in that area. There's been no testimony and no evidence presented to you by the State.

If you recall, I believe John Ertl testified that when they did a luminol test, what Mr. Fallon in -- indicated, as well, in his closing argument, it became -- it came positive right behind the John Deere. When asked, John Ertl indicated that the stain appeared to come and abut up to those boxes. So they did luminol the box. A foot-and-a-half up on the boxes.

Why would they go a foot-and-a-half up? Well, if there were blood splatter, blood splatter -- splatter can go up. There might be evidence on the box. There should be evidence on the box. And there wasn't any evidence on the box.

Again, the State points out that you must believe Brendan Dassey's statement. If Brendan Dassey's statement is believable, he says to the officers that she was placed into the Rav 4 and shot in the Rav 4. That's what he initially says to the police. No blood splatter evidence. There's a swipe of blood. The indication of bloody hair. And as was pointed out by the State in their closing argument, passive blood drops which fall to the -- towards the ground due to gravity, not splatter. Again, in Brendan Dassey's statement, if he is to be believed, every detail should be corroborated. Those are not corroborated. Neither is the mattress. He tells the, uh, officer that there's a blood stain about that big on the bedding. About six to eight inches in diameter. They never found any stain. Didn't find any bedding. But they certainly didn't find any stain on the mattress. They, in fact, if you recall, asked him, did you flip the mattress over? But there was no stain.

Again, if you believe Brendan Dassey's statement, as the State tells you you must believe, then there should be rope fibers, or at least rope. Somewhere on this table of evidence should be some rope. Rope used to tie Teresa Halbach's arms, legs and hands.

As I pointed out to you before, the State commented that Steven Avery did a good job cleaning up the house. That's why you don't find evidence connecting Brendan, or Steven for that matter, to any injuries that might have occurred to Teresa Halbach within the house.

But if he's doing such a good job at cleaning up the house, why such a sloppy job leaving blood in the Rav 4? His DNA is on the leg irons. His DNA is on the handcuffs. If he wiped those clean, his wouldn't show up. But only his show up. Not Teresa's. And certainly not Brendan's. Another uncorroborated detail in Brendan's statement.

And where is Teresa's hair? Could be in that vacuum. It's possible. I'll grant you that. But the State chose not to look in the vacuum. Could be in that Bissell, I suppose, but they chose not to look in the Bissell either. If there was hair, according to Brendan's statement, Steven kept it on his dresser. I think he first said he put it on the counter. Upon further questioning by the officer, he changed it and said, well, I think it's on the dresser. And not a lock of hair, as Mr. Fallon pointed out. He told the officers cut her hair right off.

The State brought in evidence of a cousin who claimed that Brendan told her, in December of 2005, that he did see Teresa Halbach. In her statement, she says, he said she was pinned in a chair. Contrary to the State's theory. Probably why, when Officer Wiegert was questioned about that on the stand, he referred to her being pinned in the bedroom. Not pinned in the chair. Kayla said, pinned to the chair. When asked, Officer Wiegert said, pinned in the bedroom. Why? Because there is no chair that they could find that would match that story.

Brendan's drawing of the bedroom. Certainly it doesn't have to be to scale, but I think it should at least match where items are. If the bed were all the way up against the wall, then that drawing should show the same. That's all the way up against the wall.

Another uncorroborated detail, the knife. Where's the knife? According to Brendan's statement, if it's to be believed, as the State wants you to believe, it should be in the middle console of that Rav 4. That's what he told the police when he first talked to them. He said it was in between the front seats of the Rav 4. No knife was found in the Rav 4.

Later, Brendan changes it and says, oh, he cleaned it up and put it back in the kitchen -- put it right back in the -- in the cupboard or the cabinet. And they got all the knives out. They checked all the knives. They took all the knives down to the crime lab. Nothing with blood on it. Maybe there was DNA, but they chose not to look for the DNA.

There is nothing in Brendan's statement, independent of Brendan's statement, that corroborates that there was any sexual intercourse. There's no physical evidence that suggests that. There's no DNA. No evidence of semen or any other bodily fluids in the bedroom, on any other bedding, on the mattress, because it wasn't tested.

Which leads us to the inconsistencies. As I said before, that if you are to believe Brendan's statement, as the State wants you to believe, everything, every detail, must be corroborated. If he is so detail-oriented, as Mr. Fallon said, there -- such concise detail, such clear detail, then there shouldn't be any uncorroborated detail. And, certainly, what we've seen is significant amount of uncorroborated detail. But there shouldn't be any inconsistencies either. But there are plenty of inconsistencies as well. Brendan says in his statement, originally to the officers, I helped carry her to the burn pit. Had her by the feet. As he talks to the officers more, he starts to add things. Well, I actually used the creeper. Same creeper that was -- no blood was found.

Then they -- he says, well, actually, we placed her body in the back of the Rav 4. If this bloodied body was placed in the Rav 4, why just a small amount of what appears to be bloody hair, some passive blood drops on the door? If this bloodied, stabbed, throat-slit body was placed in the Rav 4, there should be a pool of blood. A stain as big as the back of the cargo area. And there is none.

The gunshots. The first person that brings up the idea that she was shot in the head is Officer Wiegert. I believe he even admitted that on the stand. He agreed. Yep, I was -- I brought it up.

Brendan says, initially, it's two shots. But he changes it. It's two shots in the head, one shot in the stomach, which is okay. Doesn't change the theory of the State's case. They can live with that. But he goes further. It's three shots. One in the head, one in the stomach, one in the heart. That's different. Then it's ten, which they want to latch on to because of the casings found in the garage.

There are bullet holes in the burn barrel. There are guns throughout this salvage yard, different residences, as the testimony showed. These people have lots of guns. It's not unusual to see case shellings.

He first tells the officers that she was shot in the Rav 4. That were the case, there would probably be a significant amount of blood in the burn -- Rav 4. But there isn't. Then he gets back, changes it, and says, well, she was shot on the floor. Now, that matches. That's good. Let's keep that statement.

It fits the State's theory, so it must be right. You can ignore all the other con -- inconsistencies. Ignore the fact that he changed his story. Ignore the fact he first said it was in the Rav 4. The number of times she -- she was shot. Where she was shot. But, remember, it was on the floor because that matches the State's theory.

The times are inconsistent. He first says he went to Steven's around 4 or -- 4 or 4:30, according to the videotape statement. He also says it was sometime after he got back from -- from school. Sometime after 3:45. Later on, he says it was sometime around 6:30. When questioned further, the times are somewhere between 6 and 6:30. In fact, at the very end of that videotape, he says it was actually around 5:30.

Now, that might not seem like a big deal. A half-hour here or half-hour there. But it is a big deal, because in order for it to fit into the State's theory, there can't be any times that are close to 5:30, because, as the State pointed out, Mr. Kornely called sometime around that period of time; 5:30, 5:45, 6. As Mr. Kor -- Kornely said, he wasn't sure. It could have been anywhere in that time frame, and they conceded. Absolutely. He called. Probably closer to 5:30, I think, is what Mr. Fallon said, but it probably could have been as -- 5:45, as Mr. Kornely said on the stand.

But in order for it to fit, the times need to fit the State's theory, you have to ignore all the other inconsistent times. Ignore the 5:30 at the end of the videotape. Ignore the 6 to 6:30. Pick the time that fits the theory. But that's not your role.

At the beginning, I mentioned to you what your role is. Actually, I'm sure you all knew your role. Your role is to simply use common sense, make decisions based upon the evidence. Your role is not to be the attorneys. Your role is not to decide who is the victor. This isn't a competition. It's not a basketball game where somebody has to walk away as a winner. If you decide that you have doubt, and it's a reasonable doubt, then you have to acquit.

Finally, what I want to talk about, and then I'm going to actually pass on to Attorney Edelstein to finish, and he'll talk about the statements a little further with you, and finish up the closing, I want to talk about the sequence of events that occur according to the videotape statement of Brendan Dassey. Initially, he tells the officers that Teresa's stabbed by Steven Avery and then she's tied up. He changes that and indicates that Steven stabs Teresa, and then gives the knife to him, and he slits her throat. And then Steven chokes her and then ties her up. That's what the State has told you in their closing argument is what happened. They've now adopted that theory of what happened.

But does that make sense? Someone have their throat slit and then choked? Why choke someone who just had their throat slit? And if that occurred, there should be a lot of blood in that bedroom. I know we talked about it. I know I've -- I -- I spoke just recently about no blood, no blood splatter. There's no evidence at all that anyone was stabbed or had their throat slit in that bedroom on October 31, 2005, or any other time. The State's theory doesn't make sense. And Brendan's statements are just simply not consistent.

At this time I'm going to pass on to Attorney Edelstein. Thank you.

MR. EDELSTEIN: Your Honor, members of the jury, Counsel. Ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of defense team and Brendan Dassey, I want to thank you for your service in this case thus far. But it's a long way from over.

We've heard a lot of testimony, and a lot of exhibits have been received as evidence. My colleague just went over with you some of the things about the State's case that should result in a finding of not guilty. So much of the inconsistencies, so much of what the State has adopted as their theory, that they just got done arguing to you within the last couple of hours, is absolutely unsupported by the evidence.

When we look at this case, when you look at this case, guided by the evidence and the rules of law that the Judge gave you, ask yourself at some point, since, obviously, it's a huge issue, is his statement reliable? Is it believable? Well, things are believable when you: can demonstrate that it's accurate.

Now, were there some things that he said that turned out to be accurate? Of course. But the State has told you before and insists that this is only because someone there would know. A participant. But that's not necessarily true. These instructions tell you about a reasonable hypothesis, and I'm going to revisit that here in a little bit.

Since, I guess, I'm among the technically challenged here in the group, and you guys have been looking at pictures all week, if it's something critically sent -- important, I ; guess I'll resort to the ELMO. We do have some slides we want you to look at.

But let's begin with Brendan. That's where I get to use this. Brendan's 16. At the time, he was in the tenth grade. He has some special education classes. He likes video games. How many times -- and think about it, even on that 3/1 statement -- how many times did the police tell him, Brendan, start over again. Start over again. What did you do? I got home, got off the bus, played video games.

What else do we know about Brendan? We have school records. We know from the school records that he consistently does not look adults in the eyes. It would be very easy -- And these instructions allow you to use your common sense and you should use your common sense. Anybody that's ever been around kids, and they're feeling bad, and if they did something, they kind of hang their head, they don't want to look at you. And it would be awful easy for the Government to get up here and say, all you have to do is look at that. All you have to do is look at him. And he's covered with guilt. But he's not.

Brendan is expressionless. And, for the record, and for the benefit of you members of the jury, Exhibit 224. This is from his school. Brendan is expressionless. No facial expression. Seemingly blank stare, possibly indicating daydreaming.

This isn't something new. This isn't something that results because, as the State wants you to believe beyond a reasonable doubt, and that's the standard, beyond, that somehow he's acting funny because of the way he comes across in that video. That he's acting guilty. They want you to surmise things. This isn't about surmising. It's not about guessing. It's about them meeting their obligation under the law to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt.

What else did we learn from the school? On Exhibit 220, this was completed September of 2005. It describes various tests that were given to Brendan.

Recalling sentences as a subtest. Age-equivalent, five years and eight months.

Formulating sentences; nine years, nine months.

Number repetition. Mr. Fallon, during the cross-examination of Brendan, talked to him about how well he did in math. Number repetition forward; age-equivalent, five years, three months. Backwards; six years, three months. His percentile ranks are so low that it's sad.

Now, that is not to say that because he may be a pathetic character, and I don't hesitate to say that because nobody can choose their family, you can't choose your parents, you can't choose your uncles, and you can't choose your cousins, and that's sad enough, that's not to say that that negates the horrendous and horrific tragedy that befell the Halbach family. But that is not the issue. The issue is, have they proven each element of every count they have accused him of? That's where you folks come in. We know from the school records that there are specific learning disabilities. Speech or language impairment. Now, why is all this important? We'll get to Dr. Gordon here ina minute. But why is this important about who we're dealing with here? Who everybody here is dealing with. Ultimately, you folks.

These officers, when the case began -- Now, I'm not going to sit here and say, well, they're bad guys. No, they're not bad guys. But I will sit here and say they did a bad job. Ask yourselves, when you look at this, if they did a bad job, and there's not the degree of reliability in the statement that you believe is required under the law, then you're going to disregard it. When you disregard it, you've got a table full of physical items, they're surely not going to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

What did the officers do? You remember Detective O'Neill from Marinette. And I remember him because, I'm not trying to pick on him, but we saw a lot of witnesses, and he had the biggest thing hanging out of his pocket that I've ever seen. He's the first one talked with him for over an hour.

How did this begin? Remember, he said, I had minimal information. Now, I bring this up because -- because, as we have suggested and believe to be the case, the police and the prosecution are, to use the phrase of the prosecution earlier in this case, "cherry picking." We like this part of his statement, but we're not sure about that, so we're just going to stay away from it. We like this part of his statement. But they were cherry picking.

When they testified, for example, they didn't -- even O'Neill -- And he had no reason not to give it up, but he claimed he had minimal information, which really wasn't true. He knew the Rav 4 had been found. He knew Brendan, uh, was to be interviewed. He was in contact with Skorlinski, from DCI, who was in contact with Fassbender, from DCI, who was literally at the command post at the Avery property. But even he, when asked, well, did you get argumentative with him? No, it was just kind of a give and take. In his own report, he used the word "confronted".

Now, I expect at some point you're going to hear an argument -- because the State gets another opportunity to talk to you and we don't -- but you're going to hear an argument about, well, this is just good, proper technique. And that might be true if you're dealing with someone of average, normal, typical intelligence, demeanor and memory. But neither O'Neill, the first one, or Fassbender or Wiegert, the two lead investigators, really knew much, if anything, about this young man before they talked to him.

I think Wiegert admitted that. He didn't check the school. He didn't know anything about him. But this is not the typical young man. He might have been on this earth for 16 years at the time, but he didn't act like it and he didn't think like it.

And isn't it incumbent upon the Government, when they bring these type of allegations, to be able to satisfy you beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence that they're asking you to relie upon is, in fact, credible and believable and not tainted because of things that may have been said or done.

I asked all these officers about promises. And you folks, you had an opportunity to see the tape, you had an opportunity to listen to it. You've heard portions of it twice. Okay? These are but excerpts. Excerpts from that.

Excuse me, if I might, but before -- before we even get to that 3/1 interview, keep in mind that on two separate occasions on the 27th Brendan was talked to. What did Wiegert say when asked in response to when Brendan Dassey became a suspect? He didn't become a suspect until March 1. You folks can see what's up on the screen. It's a rights waiver. It's the Miranda warning. And didn't Wiegert say there's a big difference between interviews and interrogations? We don't read rights to people we're just interviewing, trying to get information. He's just a witness. He's just a witness. But on the 27th, when they go down to Two Rivers, lo and behold, Brendan, we're going to read you your rights and you're going to sign this waiver. Why is that? Was he telling you everything there was to tell? It's all these little things that accumulate, that build back some of those bricks of the wall of innocence that surrounds him, which is that presumption of innocence that all of you swore that -- on your oaths, that you would abide by unless and until the State dismantled it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Again, one little item, in and of itself, not a big deal, but it's an accumulation of things, and you have to carefully scrutinize everything they bring you before you can decide if they've reached their burden. And if they have not, you must acquit.

But here they are on the 27th. They talk to him in Two Rivers. They have him sign that.

Mark, can you switch that back?

We talked earlier, and there was testimony on cross-examination particularly about, well, what did you say to him? And this ties in, folks, with what Dr. Gordon had to say. And you're entitled to use your own common sense. Would someone -- And this is a question you're going to ask yourselves. Would someone admit to something, especially a terrible crime, if it wasn't so? Well, would any one of us? Maybe not. But, here, we're not talking about us, we're talking about Brendan.

Now, he is not ready for the institution, but he's not going to go work at NASA either. And he might be lucky to even work down at the local machine shop. We know from the academic testing, we know from the testing from Dr. Gordon, he is at the lowest of the low average and then borderline range of intelligence and functioning.

But what do the police do? Go back to our little slide show. There's promises, there's praise, there's negative feedback, lies, and suggestions. Now, they like to give it other terms. It sounds, I guess, a little softer. In fact, that's how they talk about the soft room.

I asked Wiegert, do you think you're a little smarter, maybe a little more sophisticated than Brendan? At first, he really didn't even want to answer that, and then he finally said, well, I should hope so. Well, I should hope so, too.

You have an unequal -- an unequal balance between the interrogators and Brendan. What are some of the things that are said? We're in your corner. We're on your side. Okay. You don't have to worry about things. We'll stand behind you. You're the good guy here. This is critical. These type of statements. Look at the last one. If I don't believe in you, I can't go to bat for you.

Anybody that's ever had a child has used somewhat of that same technique. I'm not going to take you to the party. I'm not going to take you to, uh, McDonald's to play in the balls. I'm not going to take you to go get ice cream unless you -- you're honest about what happened. In other words, tell me what I want to hear and then you get what you want.

The honest person's the one that's going to get a better deal. Yet, when I asked him, did you promise him anything? No, I wouldn't do that. A better deal? It's not your fault. If someone is repeatedly drilled that just tell it to us, it's okay, it's not your fault, nothing's really going to happen to you, don't you think they might be a little bit more easily persuaded to adopt what they are suggesting that they adopt? And that occurs repeatedly.

We're going to help you through this, all right? He even goes so far as to go over there, patting him on his knee. At one point, I'm sure you folks remember, during the course of that video, Detective Wiegert's over there, he's sitting on the -- the couch in the soft room, here, draw this picture for me.

Says -- he tells you. And, again, not a big deal, in and of itself, but it's an accumulation. Why is it they don't want to tell you everything? Just give it up. It's not that -- that important. But part of it is because they take the position, we're right, nobody else's opinion matters, and you have to accept what we say hook, line and sinker. We're the professionals. We know better than you. Well, it's a good thing that not everybody on a jury is a police officer, because the defendant would never have a fair fighting chance.

What about praise? Okay, Brendan, you're doing a good job. When they hear what they want, they praise him. It's like patting the puppy and -- on the head and giving him a treat when trying to get him paper trained and you get them outside and you go. You're doing a good job.

You're doing the right thing. Don't let us down. I think you're doing a real good job up to this point. That makes sense. Now we can believe you.

Keep in mind, and I think that's coming up here in a little bit, how many times he was told, we don't believe you, give us the truth, be honest with us. I think I asked Wiegert, well, how many times did you say that? And he didn't know. I wouldn't expect him to. I wouldn't expect him to sit there and count, in the course of a lengthy, three-hour interrogation, the number of times he or his partner suggested to Brendan, come on, be honest. Quit lying to us. I wouldn't expect that. But it happened a lot. And it's consistent with this technique.

And it wasn't so much at that point that they're interested in getting the truth so much as they want some information. Now, they took that information and ran with it and made it match as best they could. But, still, they insist only a person who participated as party to the crime would know these things. And that, folks, is not true.

Your cooperation and help with us is going to work in your favor. Now I can start believing you. Here's some of the negative ones. You're making this hard on us and yourself. Don't start lying now. Be honest. You're just hurting yourself. Oops, I'm sorry, I went a little fast. You're just hurting yourself if you lie now. These are just a few -- a few of the things that were said to him in these type of techniques.

What are some of the lies? They said they didn't lie to him. They called it "deceptive practices". It's going to be a lot easier on you down the road if this goes to trial and stuff like that. Why not tell somebody that? It's absolutely untrue. But if they admit to things, and you don't verify that what they say is correct, how is it easier on him? You're putting him in a box. They convince this boy, it doesn't really matter, just tell us, we're your friends.

At one point, I think Wiegert -- I think it's in our presentation -- talks about, I just want to give you a hug. No police officer, who's investigating this type of an offense, vicious and cruel as it was, can honestly sit there with a straight face and tell you folks, I just want to give this young man a hug when I think he had something to do with this.

I'm your friend. Where was she? Come on, we know this already. We know you were back there. And he's talking about the bedroom. We know you were back there. Where's the physical evidence to support that? He wasn't confronted one time.

You've all seen this on TV. They're talking to somebody, oh, come on, we know you did it. Somebody says, I didn't. They throw something in front of him and say, well, there's some pictures, here's some prints, here's this, here's that.

They had -- they didn't know it -- this. They kept accusing him of it without one piece of evidence to back it up. And, eventually, he adopts some of it. Of course they're going to tell you, well, that's because he finally broke down and told the truth. However, when they make that statement, I challenge you folks to discern for yourselves how much of what he said is true and try to answer that question by what they brought you. By what they brought you.

Even his own cousin, who they brought up on the stand, it doesn't match. She's pinned up in a chair. That's ridiculous. They never even followed up on that.

How is this for a lie? Truthfully, I don't think Steven intended to kill her. Awe, Brendan, just tell us, because it was probably an accident. We don't even think Steven intended to do it.

What happened to Teresa was horrendous. Steven Avery preyed upon that girl when he called and said, send me the same girl. We know what dates she'd been there before. She'd been there.

Now, that man -- young man, he's not dead, and he hasn't been through a fire pit, but if you do what the State asks, he might as well be.

There's the hug. How about suggestions? This is where they get to the part of saying, well, now, you know, in order for us to believe you, all you have to do is say you did some things, because then we'd probably believe you. It's not your fault. He makes you do it. It's okay. He was telling you to do it. What does Steven make you do? You went back into that room. Some of these are doubles. We'd be here all day if we listed every single one and every single category of lies, suggestions, promises. The point simply is, this went on over and over and over again. Was his will overcome? Did he say these things because he'd had enough? We know he's highly suggestible. You were there when she died. You helped tie her up, though, didn't you? What he made you do. We know he made you do something else. I think he probably told you.

You went over to his house. When the times didn't match, but they wanted it to match, their theory, they continually, repeatedly told him that his times were wrong. Yet, there's nothing, whatsoever, to suggest that the Kornely information is wrong.

They're saying that he went over there twice. Now, ask yourselves this, folks, would this young man, even Brendan Dassey with the limitations he has -- And like I said, he's not ready for the institution. But would this young man walk in, who's been described, not only by the school personnel, as quiet, reserved, respectful, tested out that way with the counselors, the teachers, the other professionals who examined him, is he just going to walk away from that trailer like they want you to believe?

What was his brother's testimony? I got off the bus. I saw Steve Avery walking over to that burn barrel. The same burn barrel where Teresa's property was found. What time was that? That was when they were walking home. His own brother said that. Their witness.

How many times did you shoot her?

Now, Mr. Fallon stood here and told you, not less than twice, that Brendan Dassey never pulled the trigger. He told you that. That's their theory. They believe that.

However, examine the statement. When Wiegert and Fassbender were asking him questions, again, without really having much contact with him, without knowing his cognitive limitations, without knowing how his ability to receive and process information and language, whether it was a good talent that he had, a poor skill, they asked him things like, how many times did you shoot her? They don't even say who they're talking about. And it's in there. If it would say, how many times did Steve do it? How many times did you do it? And they're going to talk about resistance. How he resisted that.

But the truth of the matter is, a couple of times, when they weren't specific about who they're even talking about, he gives an answer, such as a number. And it changes. It bounces back and forth. He was confused. He was scared.

And let's just briefly touch upon that. Ask yourselves, how probing were they when he told them, I seen it. And he said, he told, he seen me see it, so he told me not to say something or else it will -- he threatened me a little bit. He made it clear to them early on. And they had no reason to doubt it. They just didn't like the answers. They didn't like what he said. But they never explored the potential truth and alternative that this young man walked over there and did see something in a fire, and that something was Teresa Halbach.

They go through this scenario, and they start -- once he tells them, I seen it, and Steve knew it, and he said, don't say anything, that's when it becomes, you saw this, you saw that.

They admitted, and Wiegert testified to it, you saw it on the video, they brought up specific facts, again, that they claim only somebody involved would know, which at some point he adopted. But his adoption doesn't make it true.

You all heard the phrase "you can't believe everything you read in the newspaper." Well, you can't, necessarily, believe everything Brendan Dassey says on a video, because there's no independent verification from a source -- from any source.

We know you shot her, too. Now, how dare the State of Wisconsin come into the courtroom in this state, that statement having been given to a cognitively limited young man, flat out accusing him of picking up that gun and shooting this poor girl. And they didn't do it just once. We know you shot her, too. Where? Where is the evidence to support that?

He's making it up on the fly. Sounds good to us. Let's see if he accepts it or rejects it. Why would you even do it when you combine that with the types of promises, offers of leniency, telling him it's okay, he didn't do anything wrong, somebody else made him do it, especially when you're dealing with someone like Brendan Dassey. Why? And, yet, have the audacity to come in here today and say, we know he didn't do it. Steve Avery shot her. But he helped. He was there. This isn't guilt by association. This isn't guilt by what family you belong to. It's guilt by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And if they don't climb that ladder, you don't give it to them.

What did he do under the hood? They're the first ones that brought this up. You saw the hands and the forehead. Now, I can sit up here all day long and talk about these techniques, these statements, whether it's believable or not. Obviously, we believe it is not. It is not reliable, because it is not true that only a person who participated would know these things.

How many times during the course of that discussion on the lst did they say, come on, Brendan, we know you and Steven talked about it. Mr. Fallon just got up here and told you. And then they went from that bedroom into that front room and had a little chat. That's how he characterized it. A little chat about what they're going to do. How they're going to get rid of Teresa.

It's more likely that little chat happened when he walked over there expecting a Halloween bonfire, and went around with the little cart, and picked up all the stuff, and eventually they start throwing stuff in there, and he probably did see something. Pretty traumatic. Is that reason enough for a young man to be despondent? To be sad? Is that a reasonable hypothesis?

This is straight from the instruction. If you can reconcile the evidence upon any reasonable hypothesis consistent with the defendant's innocence, you should do so and return a verdict of not guilty.

That's a very reasonable hypothesis. When he went over there, and I'm sure every one of you is sitting here right now and saying, where's this lawyer coming up with this? Brendan was up on the stand. And he says he got it from a book, and he said, "I don't know" countless times. But he did tell the police. He did tell the police he saw things. Steve threatened him. He told him to keep his mouth shut.

Is this a young man whose memory skills -- And this isn't just based upon what people like to characterize as the "hired gun". It's not just based on Dr. Gordon. The school has no reason to tell you anything that's not so. We know he has these difficulties. It's easy for the State to say, well, the school said he's not suggestible. The school never tested him for that. They didn't test him. They had no reason to test him.

Let's look at Dr. Gordon. You remember him. And he's the gentleman going down to. St. Louis University. He's been in practice for quite some time. In fact, we had quite the array of specialists and experts in this trial. But that, in and of itself, no matter how much, the instructions tell you it doesn't matter how many witnesses. It's not a balance like that. They had more so they win. That's not how it works. It's not a question of qualifications. Well, they had a lot more experts.

But here's Dr. Gordon. He administered these tests. He's shy. Socially avoidant. And he has cognitive limitations. Borderline to low average intelligence. In fact, he came in and said the two different IQ tests that he provided, which are done as a check against one an -- one another, were actually a little bit higher than what the school had. His bottom line conclusion? Very vulnerable to suggestion.

You recall when Dr. Gordon was testifying, he gave you this information about some of these tests -- various tests that he administered. I don't think there's much dispute about the IQ. That's fairly obvious, even in the video. And if it wasn't obvious in there, folks, if you believe that that poor boy was acting up there, then we should all chip in and buy him Academy Award. He does haven't that kind of skill. You saw him.

But look where he falls on the 16-PF. On the lowest end. Well below average. He's not independent. He's not socially bold. He's not dominant. So when Mr. Fallon suggests he had all these choices, did he really? When he walked over there and saw what he saw, what choice did he have? What choice did he have?

Don't hold it against him because he said things like, well, I don't like the police like the rest of my family. He can't pick his parents. He can't pick his uncle. But look at the results on that. That's not someone who's in a position to turn around and either walk away -- he probably had no clue what to do. None. Ask yourself, on this Gudjonsson Scale -- Now, they brought Dr. Armentrout in who said, I've been around forever, I know what I'm doing, and I've never heard of this thing other than what I've looked up on the internet, and I know the guy's from Iceland, now he's in England. And I really think it's stupid when you ask somebody, um, about being on holiday. Maybe so. But that's only one question. There wasn't anything else he talked about. But Gordon administered the test. It's a recognized, acceptable test.

So many years ago, when the prosecution came in and said to judge after judge after judge, we want to use this scientific evidence called DNA, it met with a lot of skepticism, but has become accepted and reliable. This is no different than any other measurement tool. He was qualified to give it, and those are Brendan's results.

You heard the testimony about the shift and the yield. And it wasn't just from Gordon. And what does that really mean? Basically, you give somebody a lot of feedback that's negative. He didn't like your answer. Are they going to change it? Yes. And this is a one on one. This is not some kind of group dynamic test. This is one on one. He's faced two on one with very skilled, experienced officers, who, between the two of them, have got probably about three times as much experience just in their law enforcement career as many years as that boy's been alive.

And when asked, did Wiegert say, in response to the question, well, isn't it true that when you gave him negative feedback, that he changed his answer for you? Yes. Isn't it true that when you provided or suggested an answer to him, he changed his answer? Yes, that's true.

Like I said before, folks, I'm not here sitting here telling you that they're bad guys. They're not bad guys. But this is how they're trained to do this. But you don't apply the same techniques on every single person. This is not cookie cutter justice. One size does not fit all. And it is incumbent upon them, when they bring you what they characterize as a "confession", to convince you that it is reliable enough that you can hang your hat on it. And in this case, you simply can't.

Was it an error? Certainly, it could have been done better. I think they would even acknowledge that. But that's what we have. And that's what we have to deal with.

They might get up and argue, well, gee, you heard this testimony about his ability to resist things, which is not very strong, but he resisted the shooting.

What about the phone call to his mom? You guys heard that. Who does all the talking? Barb does all the talking. You could have been the hero. Yeah. That's kind -- That's more of a response. It's not an affirmation in that phone call.

And, again, trust your collective memory, folks, if it's been different than mine. I know you guys have your little pads the Court gave you with all those notes of the testimony. That's mine. I'm not going to sit here and go through it. Not right now. But I've looked at it every day during the course of this. But if you remember it different, trust your memory.

Did he ever say -- Did his mom ever say, did you kill that girl? Did Brendan ever say, oh, you bet. No. That's not what happened. It was something like, did you do those things? And what was his answer? Some of it. Some of what? Some of standing around the fire? Some of picking things up with the golf cart? What does that mean to him? It's not that clear. It's not clear beyond a reasonable doubt. Never, ever take anything out of context. You have to look at everything.

If all it was was a matter of simply saying, yes or no, we'd have left here days ago. In fact, I made a point of demonstrating with Detective Wiegert just how easily Brendan would go along. How many times did Wiegert say things like, Brendan, say yes or no. And Brendan would go, yes. I remember one other time, same interview, Brendan, say yes or no. No. He's doing what he's told.

His limitations are such that he can't go from the question up at the top of the page, halfway down when they're coming back to it, when they have interposed in between there promises, assurances, lies. And then they come back and say, aren't we right? He might say, yeah. Tattoo's a perfect example of that. They claimed, and they presented to you, that they brought that up as an example of how he could resist suggestion. Wrong. They're just wrong. All he did was say, in response to Wiegert, when Wiegert insisted that Teresa had a tattoo, was when -- because I think the question was, do you disagree with that, and he said, no, but I don't know where it is. That makes no sense. They want you to believe that the response means one thing when, in fact, it means something totally different.

The reliability of that video, of that statement, is such, combined with the expert testimony that's been presented in this case, which has not been refuted, Armentrout has never even heard of this, and the only thing he could do is say, well, I don't see any notes on the score sheet here, so I don't have a lot of faith in this.

These are some things we already talked about. Gordon's assessment's consistent with the school. He has memory deficits. And Armentrout doesn't know much about this test. Mr. Armentrout went so far as to say, I saw the word "suggestible" one time when I was checking the internet.. And, again, he offers his opinion about why Gordon shouldn't be believed. But there's no basis for that.

Ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of Brendan Dassey, Mr. Fremgen, myself, I want to thank you for your service in this case. It's been a long period of time. But this is so important that you abide by your oaths that you took when we first met you, when this case first began, and to deliver a true verdict based only on the. law and only on this evidence.

And when you review it all, and you listen to one another, and you take the time necessary to consider it, and use your common sense, and don't just rubber stamp the version they provide you, keeping in mind it is their burden, and it's an awesome burden, that they have not -- they have not removed those bricks of protection, that presumption of innocence that surrounds him.

Don't convict him because this was a horrible thing. Don't convict him because he couldn't pick his parents. Don't convict him because he simply doesn't know and he's honest about it. If he doesn't know, and you believe him, and you judge him like you would anyone else under the instruction on credibility, you should, and we hope that you will, return verdicts of not guilty on all counts. Thank you, very much.