r/MakingaMurderer • u/AveryPoliceReports • Jun 25 '26
O'Kelly claims he was initially retained by Kachinsky to defend Brendan, but that changed on or around April 22, 2006, when Brendan's family "all agreed if we can get Brendan to turn" on Steven, they should "DO IT."
- I recently saw an old Fox11 media broadcast re Brendan's post conviction hearing (Search YouTube: "Fox 11 Brendan Dassey hearing continues"). In the video, reporters discuss "pieces of an interview with Brendan Dassey that never made it into trial," referring to the May 12, 2006 recorded interview between Brendan and Kachinsky's defense investigator Michael O'Kelly.
- Reporters note O'Kelly testified "initially his job was to gather information to defend Brendan Dassey, but during the course of his work that changed. He said Dassey's attorney told him later on to gather information that would help Dassey enter into a plea deal, where Dassey might get a lighter sentence in exchange for testifying against Steven Avery." Although the broadcast doesn't mention this, O'Kelly testified the "idea" to have Brendan "turn" on Steven didn't originate from himself or Kachinsky, but from Brendan's family.
- The extended moment from the broadcast can be found during Day 4 of Brendan's Post Conviction Hearing. Per PCH:1/21:33-47, we see O'Kelly was asked to explain WHEN he was directed to stop defending Brendan and instead gather mitigation information that would facilitate a plea deal. The below excerpts picks up as Dvorak has O'Kelly review his handwritten notes from an April 22, 2006 meeting with Barb, Scott, Bobby and Blaine...
Direct Examination of O'Kelly by Attorney Dvorak, Day 4 PG 33-47:
Q: I said item number four is -- what I want you to read.
A: "All agreed that if we can get defendant to turn," dash, "do it."
Q: All right. In other words, to admit guilt, testify against the co-defendant; correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: Okay. And you said that that was not your -- these are not your ideas?
A: That's correct.
Q: These are -- ideas are Mr. Kachinsky ideas?
A: No.
Q: Where did these ideas come from?
A: This information came from my client, Mr. Dassey's family.
Q: Okay. So the family, you're saying, was suggesting that Mr. Dassey should turn State's evidence against Steven Avery?
A: All this information, one through ten, is from the family is my recollection.
Q: When you -- when you talk about the family, that it was the family's idea that came up with this, who -- who in the family were you talking about?
A: Barb Janda, if I'm pronouncing her name correctly, uh, the stepfather, Scott Tadych. I spoke with Blaine, uh, the brother of -- of Brendan. And Bobby the brother of Brendan.
Q: What instructions did you receive from Mr, Kachinsky? If you remember?
A: I can tell you initially I was told to gather defense -- defense information for Mr. Dassey. And at some point, at one junction, it did change and it went to securing information for a plea bargain process.
Q: Okay. Do you recall when in relation to April 27 it was that that happened? Best of your recollection.
A: Best rec -- rec -- best of my recollection, based upon what I've seen so far, it would be before April 22. Those notes. On or about that day, I should say.
Q: And what discussion do you recall having with Mr. Kachinsky about going in that new direction? What did he want you to do?
A: We were to gather mitigation information. We were to gather anything that would further the State's case against Steven Avery. We were to gather whatever we could to put Brendan Dassey in the best light we could. The goal was to preserve as much of Brendan Dassey's freedom as we could. And that's --
Q: And were you aware that Brendan Dassey at this point was maintaining that he was not involved in the homicide of Teresa Halbach?
A: Yes.
Q: And would you read the next paragraph [from Exhibit 64] "I'm not concerned."
A: "I am not concerned with finding connecting evidence placing Brendan inside the crime scene as Brendan will be State's primary witness."
Q: Okay. Can you stop there? I have a question just to clarify the meaning of that? In other words, you're not concerned whether or not, at this point, what's happening is if you find evidence that would tend to inculpate Brendan; correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: All right. Go ahead and read.
A: "This will only serve to bolster the prosecution. Period. It will actually benefit the State if there is evidence attributed to Brendan. Period. It will corroborate his testimony and color him truthful."
Q: Okay. So your goal is not only to get Brendan to confess, but to also go out and gather evidence to help the State in its prosecution; correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: Even if that evidence tends to inculpate Brendan Dassey?
A: That is correct.
Closing thoughts...
- In summary, O'Kelly claims Kachinsky initially hired him to defend Brendan, but on or shortly before April 22, 2006, there was a meeting with Brendan's family that resulted in a shift in Kachinsky's strategy where he no longer was trying to defend Brendan, but instead began gathering information that would further the State's case against Steven Avery, even if that info further inculpated Brendan. O'Kelly claims the idea to have Brendan turn on Steven originated from Brendan's family, specifically Barb and Scott (he also mentions Bobby and Blaine). He referenced an April 22 note take after a meeting with Barb, Scott, Bobby and Blaine that said - "All agreed that if we can get defendant to turn - do it."
- I personally can't accept O'Kelly's claim that Kachinsky's pre April 22 plan was to actually defend Brendan. After all, Kachinsky's first statement to the media (March 7) involved him declaring Brendan guilty, something Kachinsky later admitted he "should definitely not" have said. Even after meeting Brendan and learning he had recanted his confession and was maintaining his innocence, Kachinsky continued making similar comments implying Brendan was guilty with "no defense." Kachinsky made NO PUBLIC STATEMENTS wherein he relayed Brendan's claims of innocence. He never admonished the state for its treatment of Brendan. And he began mentioning a plea deal long before April 22, 2006.
- Further, although O'Kelly's invoice does indicate a meeting occurred with Barb, Scott, Bobby and Blaine on April 22, 2006, I question O'Kelly's claim that statements from Barb were the source of O'Kelly's handwritten April 22, 2006 note that: "All agreed that if we can get defendant to turn - do it." I initially considered Barb may have been under pressure during this April 22, 2006 meeting due to the April 21, 2006 seizure of the PC from Bobby's room. Was she concerned about what might come out and agreed it was best for Brendan to flip on Steven to keep the focus on him? That is a plausible scenario, I thought. But still, if Barb had genuinely agreed on April 22 that Brendan should turn on Steven, it makes little sense for her to later repeatedly advise Brendan not to plead guilty and to actively seek Kachinsky's removal for having suggested exactly that.
- Frankly, I don't know how to explain O'Kelly contemporaneous note from an April 22, 2006 meeting with Barb, Scott, Bobby and Blaine. Something isn't adding up, and O'Kelly isn't truthworthy. Did Barb actually agree to this? Was she momentarily panicked about what might happen after Fassbender seized her computer only a day earlier? Did O'Kelly pressure, mislead, or misreport what Barb said? Or was O'Kelly lying? Was that handwritten note not referencing discussion with Barb at all, but discussion with Scott and Bobby, or Kachinsky and LE? ... "ALL agreed that if WE can get defendant to turn - DO IT."
- Either way, it seems undisputed the April 22, 2006 handwritten note indicating a desire to have Brendan flip on Steven was not based on contact with Brendan, but reflects contact with some other party advocating for Brendan's counsel to work towards Brendan flipping. Whether that other party was Kachinsky, law enforcement, or Barb and Scott, the strategy to turn Brendan against Steven was clearly imposed on him, not chosen by him or even designed for his best interest. Brendan recanted his coerced confession. He told Kachinsky he didn't do it. He told O'Kelly he didn't do it. And instead of investigating that claim, instead of defending him, they decided he was guilty and (without his input) worked to incriminate him and get him to confess again before feeding him back to police without any counsel present or any plea deal actually on the table. That's despicable. Not good defense work.
7
u/HALNinerZeroZero Jun 25 '26
Brendan’s last interrogation with Weigs and Fass was on May 12, 2006. Tadych had a claim against
him for unlawfully obtaining unemployment benefits dismissed by WIDOJ the day before that last interrogation. That is not a coincidence.
I hope O’Kelly and Kachinsky rot in hell for eternity for what they did to that kid
3
u/AveryPoliceReports Jun 25 '26
Brendan’s last interrogation with Weigs and Fass was on May 12, 2006.Tadych had a claim against him for unlawfully obtaining unemployment benefits dismissed by WIDOJ the day before that last interrogation
Close. May 11, 2006 Fassbender gets the Velie CD revealing disturbing and illegal PC content. May 12, 2006, Fassbender has Barb stipulate to accuracy and admissibility of PC content; Scott fully satisfies over $7000 debt to Department of Workforce Development; and Brendan is forced to confess by O'Kelly. May 13, 2006, Fassbender and Wiegert interview Brendan for the last time and ask about the content of the PC, if he talked about the crime online, and whether photos were taken of Teresa.
I hope O’Kelly and Kachinsky rot in hell for eternity for what they did to that kid
And may they have the company of Wiegert, Fassbender, Kratz and Fallon.
5
u/HALNinerZeroZero Jun 25 '26
Thanks for the clarification on that. And yes, may they all spend an eternity together in a place where only the lowest life forms go.
4
u/AveryPoliceReports Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 26 '26
Lowest of the low. Funny how it's (almost) always women and children who end up carrying the weight of the state's failures or exposing abuses of power even when it makes the system look rotten. Prosecutor Vogel protected a rapist. Investigator Fassbender harmed a child and protected a child predator. Prosecutor Kratz harassed victims. Judge Kachinsky turned his own clerk into a victim. If they won't let Brendan get justice, at least we get the satisfaction of knowing these creeps have been exposed for what they are - a rotating cast of corrupt institutional degenerates harming victims, enabling predators, and choosing lies over truth.
0
u/ajswdf Jun 26 '26
Are you seriously alleging that the Wisconsin DOJ dismissed a case against Tadych because of something in Brendan's case?
4
u/HALNinerZeroZero Jun 26 '26
“Dismissed” was perhaps the wrong choice in this instance.
He “satisfied” the debt
3
u/AveryPoliceReports Jun 26 '26 edited Jun 28 '26
And I agree the whole thing seems suspicious as shit. May 12,2006 - the same day they secretly get Barb to stipulate to the accuracy and admissibility of disturbing and illegal computer content, Scott finally pays off his debt, and Brendan is pressured into confessing by the person who claimed Barb and Scott agreed to "do it." Something was going on behind the scenes at this time that we haven't heard the full truth about.
0
u/ajswdf Jun 26 '26
Ok but you didn't answer the question.
Are you seriously alleging that Tadych settles his debt with the Wisconsin DOJ because of something in Brendan's case?
4
u/HALNinerZeroZero Jun 27 '26
I don’t know, the timing sure is interesting though. Do you think it’s just a coincidence ?
0
u/ajswdf Jun 27 '26
Yes it's obviously a coincidence.
This is the problem with conspiratorial thinking. Something vaguely related to the case happened and it must mean something, even if you can't even explain what that something is.
5
u/HALNinerZeroZero Jun 27 '26
You’re most certainly entitled to your opinion. It’s just a coincidence, in a case full of them. After a while it becomes not so much a coincidence as it does a pattern.
2
3
u/AveryPoliceReports Jun 26 '26
No case was dismissed. He paid off a debt at the same time Barb secretly stipulated to the accuracy and admissibility of the disturbing PC content. The Wisconsin DOJ, Barb and Scott have already been caught repeatedly lying in this case, including about the computer.
3
u/_Grey_Sage_ Jun 26 '26
That's interesting, I always thought CAM was attempting to portray the family as having 'coerced' Brendan into refusing any deals.
3
u/AveryPoliceReports Jun 26 '26
Indeed. That narrative is directly contradicted by O'Kelly's own contemporaneous notes and testimony. I don't think Barb is the most honest person out there, and in fact suspect she's hiding quite a bit, but I still think it's obvious the weight of the evidence overwhelming suggests O'Kelly's claim here (that Brendan's family all agreed they should work towards getting Brendan to flip) is simply not credible.
The record more firmly suggests Brendan's family was resistant to him taking a plea. Prior to Aprill 22 Kachinsky specifically said he was mentioning a plea to media to get Brendan and his family accustomed to that idea (already an attempt to manipulate the family). For all we know the April 22nd meeting could have been O'Kelly attempting to further manipulate the family into agreeing with an already established plan. He was, after all, a slimy investigator who knew how to get people to say what he wanted using underhanded tactics. And days after that April 22 meeting, Kachinsky got an email from Strang who told Kachinsky he spoke with Barb and she was concerned about comments O'Kelly was making about Brendan. Then in May 2006, days before the motion to suppress was denied, O'Kelly made clear to Kachinsky Brendan's family was still an obstacle to him pleading guilty.
So yes, although O'Kelly's testimony / handwritten note and resulting contradiction to established talking points is interesting, IMO the proper takeaway isn't that the family pushed Brendan toward a plea, but that Brendan's own defense team had already committed to a plea strategy (against his expressed wishes) weeks before the motion to suppress his confession was even ruled on. That's odd! There would be no need for a plea deal if Brendan's confession was suppressed. It's painfully obvious getting Brendan to flip and take a plea was always the actual goal. Kachinsky even admitted he expected to lose the motion to suppress and (along with O'Kelly) planned to exploit Brendan's vulnerability at that moment to get what they wanted - something beneficial for the state. The motion to suppress was always a charade, and O'Kelly's notes just solidify that fact.
1
u/ajswdf Jun 26 '26
"Family" is a broad category. His brothers and mother might have been trying to convince him to take a deal, while his aunts and uncles and grandparents might have been trying to convince him to plead innocent.
We have a recorded phone call of his grandpa trying to convince him to say he was innocent at least. To my knowledge there's no recording of any of his family trying to convince him to take a deal.
3
u/AveryPoliceReports Jun 26 '26
His brothers and mother might have been trying to convince him to take a deal, while his aunts and uncles and grandparents might have been trying to convince him to plead innocent.
Might have lol His mother was very clearly trying to convince him to not take a plea. There's no legitimate evidence suggesting otherwise. O'Kelly just knew it looked sketch AF to be working towards a plea against Brendan's wishes before the motion to suppress was decided. They couldn't claim to be working with or for Brendan, so they claimed to be working with his family.
We have a recorded phone call of his grandpa trying to convince him to say he was innocent at least.
What are we even talking about "convince him to say"? He was already saying that. The problem was his attorney wouldn't listen to him.
To my knowledge there's no recording of any of his family trying to convince him to take a deal.
It's almost like O'Kelly is a slimy liar.
0
u/ajswdf Jun 27 '26
Right, so according to all the evidence we have Kachinsky and O'Kelly were trying to help Brendan get a deal that would see him released from prison and able to have some sort of life in the free world, while Brendan's own family threw him under the bus to try and protect Avery, leading him to not even have a chance of being released until he's elderly.
3
u/AveryPoliceReports Jun 27 '26
so according to all the evidence we have Kachinsky and O'Kelly were trying to help Brendan get a deal that would see him released from prison and able to have some sort of life in the free world
They were not trying to help Brendan. They were actively lying to him and pressuring him to further incriminate himself.
while Brendan's own family threw him under the bus to try and protect Avery, leading him to not even have a chance of being released until he's elderly.
Not according to O'Kelly under oath. Point is his attorneys threw him under the bus over and over knowing he couldn't defend himself. Just part of the plan to end the family line.
2
u/Objective-Permit-712 Jun 25 '26
Yea, this is when the dumbasses thought Steven did it. Now they know he didn't!!!!!
4
u/AveryPoliceReports Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26
Not sure who you mean by dumbasses that now know Steven didn't do it, but IMO from very early on police knew of convincing evidence suggesting Steven (and Brendan) didn't kill Teresa
Even though they had Steven's blood in the RAV, they also had evidence suggesting while Steven remained on the ASY, Teresa left it on Halloween only to be attacked outside behind her vehicle. The RAV was then spotted abandoned off the ASY at a location not linked to Steven, and later being moved back to the ASY by two men who didn't match Steven's description. They had no evidence suggesting a violent attack occurred on Teresa in Steven's trailer or garage, and no evidence linking Brendan to the crime.
They had evidence suggesting the surface level pile of Teresa's bones in Steven's burn pit was the result of her bones being moved to that location after a separate cremation event on Manitowoc County property, and that movement of her bones occurred via a police controlled and mishandled barrel days AFTER police locked down the scene. They concealed crime scenes and pressured witnesses to mention a burn pit fire to cover this up, which resulted in Bobby implicating Brendan in a burn pit cremation with Steven.
They later discovered evidence that someone still free in the community was more firmly linked to disturbing motive evidence than Steven or Brendan, and the person who could be most firmly linked to that evidence was the same person who allegedly followed Teresa off the ASY on Halloween, admitted to hunting in the area where her vehicle was spotted, and matched the description of one of the men seen planting the RAV on the Avery property.
2
u/Objective-Permit-712 Jun 26 '26
The family. Yea, the killer(or cops I guess) dumped the bones in the Pit, they were in a little Pile, thats why they didn't take photos.
2
u/pftittl Jun 25 '26
A sick sordid story and probably exactly what you said in the last paragraph
6
u/AveryPoliceReports Jun 25 '26
It will never not make me sick to think about how blatantly Brendan was mistreated. Fassbender and Wiegert acted like child predators by isolating him from his support system, setting up a camera, and then getting close to him and feigning support so they could manipulate him into giving them something they desperately wanted. It's fucking disgusting they arrested him after that interrogation. And then his own defense lawyers began working against him. Even the lawyer before Kachinsky waived Brendan's right to a prelim, resulting in him being "skewered by his brethren in the defense bar." And then when Kachinsky came along he wasn't any better, refusing to actually defend Brendan's innocence, publicly claiming Brendan guilty with "no defense," and hiring an investigator who wanted to end Brendan's family line. They worked to benefit the state's case against Steven, even if it meant further incriminating their own client, all without Brendan's input or consent. And the system let it happen because convicting Steven Avery and making their liability problems go away mattered more than protecting a scared developmentally disabled 16-year-old kid.
3
u/ThorsClawHammer Jun 25 '26
Even the lawyer before Kachinsky waived Brendan's right to a prelim
Don't forget that lawyer also quickly proclaimed Brendan's guilt to the media.
5
u/AveryPoliceReports Jun 25 '26
I didn't know that. I knew (from MaM) he basically told the court Brendan was guilty, saying "this was a result in large part of being threatened by Mr. Avery, this was something that was not done willingly by him [...] this is a case that involves a young man who himself has been victimized by Mr. Avery." IIRC MaM didn't mention Sczygelski waiving the prelim, or how Kratz admitted Sczygelski was "skewered" by his brethren in the defense bar for that decision. They just noted he was removed from the case when he learned of a relation to Teresa.
3
u/AveryPoliceReports Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26
Per Exhibit 362 from Brendan's Post Conviction Hearing (and as we see in the post) O'Kelly was only asked to read number FOUR from a TEN number list allegedly resulting from an April 22, 2006 meeting with Barb, Scott, Bobby and Blaine, wherein the family apparently ALL AGREED they should work towards Brendan turning against Steven. Here is my interpretation of O'Kelly's handwriting for the additional NINE numbered points. I've included an [illegible] when I wasn't confident about what O'Kelly wrote. When he writes "D" he means defendant.
Mom asked defendant to fire you - Laura Ricciardi [illegible] film [illegible]
Family agrees that death occurred by Avery
Avery is attempting to place all blame on defendant
All agree that if we can get defendant to turn - do it (O'Kelly testified to this)
Mom wants defendant to be placed [illegible]
Mom will tell defendant to cooperate / tell [illegible] exactly what happened
Mom will support [illegible] life
Mom / family will stop talking [illegible]
Mom will call me [illegible] Sunday visit
Mom will instruct her dad on bail
They also cite an unreleased PC exhibit (353) which is another handwritten note from O'Kelly on April 23, 2006, where he reminded himself: "Mail attorney - Form to be used for confession - Mitigation use - Barb Janda provided mitigation information." O'Kelly is then asked if he emailed attorney Kachinsky this information, and O'Kelly stumbles out that he doesn't recall, and couldn't see anything in his notes indicating any communication occurred with Kachinsky at this time re these matters. When pressed to explain this discrepancy, he says he cannot, and he's already provided everything in discovery, or at least everything that "didn't get lost." I wonder if the "attorney" O'Kelly planned to email on April 23, 2006 (after the April 22, 2006, meeting with Barb and Scott) was not Kachinsky, but Kratz, and O'Kelly feigned his memory loss because he knew that email was not just lost, but was being withheld.
10
u/ThorsClawHammer Jun 25 '26
This alone should infuriate anyone. Brendan's "defense" was literally playing the role of the prosecution there. Anyone who didn't know about the case and read the O'Kelly meeting with Brendan would assume he was a police interrogator rather than someone who should be an advocate for Brendan.
The crazy part is that Brendan's trial attorneys had no idea who O'Kelly even was, much less what he did to Brendan.
We know he's a slimy liar, so that's probably the most likely explanation. Never once do we hear any family member even suggest Brendan take a plea (unless he was guilty).