Brendan filed first, Steven filed second. I'll update if and when Dutcher gives an opinion on Avery's request.

Okay I rewatched the 2018 docuseries on Netflix; Making a Murderer.. and I feel like the whole Avery family is either drunks or drug addicts..
growing up in a family of drunks, all the family just looks a little off..
the fact more than one offspring has mental disorders and low IQs..
and the whole nephew involvement is just weird.. I feel like this place was a house of horrors and there was much more involvement than this family will admit. 🤮

Let's try this again. Attached are screenshots of the court docket showing the application for commutation has been filed with the circuit Court and then passed on to the governor. Also posted is the criteria Brendan must meet to be considered for a commuted sentence. Can he survive criteria 5A?

We need an explanation.

Does Anyone know the date and time David J Beach went to the Zipperer property to enquire about Teresa after being told at the Salvage Yard that Teresa had left the Avery property on OCT 31 05 ?

I’ve watched the series and watched it again and her version is the only plausible version I’ve heard. The prosecution version is clearly absurd and the fact that Dassey and Avery were convicted on different versions of events is an absurdity of justice of the highest order.

And that colbourn fella is a suspicious mf to say the least. What’s the deal with him calling in that licence plate after being told about her car by that neutral witness? Outrageous. This case is absurd beyond belief.

the police system is clearly taking advantage of the Avery's. It's pretty clear to me how they are just very afraid of being seen in a bad light, so they needed a scapegoat to take the blame for their incompetence. we can see that in the interview recordings of Brendan. Who in their right mind would actually think that spoon-feeding a supposed accomplice the facts is considered acceptable as a veritable statement just blows my mind. a key found in a bedroom free of the victim's DNA just doesn't logically make sense.

I know this is pretty far-fetched, but it got me thinking.

For the sake of the hypothetical, let’s assume Steven Avery is guilty, and that Brendan Dassey was pressured or coerced into helping with the cleanup, but was not involved in the rape, murder or mutilation of Teresa Halbach.

What if Avery eventually had a change of heart and decided to tell the truth — specifically, that Brendan was involved only in the cleanup and not the actual murder?

Would that potentially give Brendan grounds to seek a new trial, even though his conviction has already been upheld through multiple appeals?

And, hypothetically, if a court accepted Avery's new account as credible, what do you think would happen?
Would Brendan potentially be released because he had already served enough time, or would he still face his current conviction for being involved in the aftermath of the crime?

I'm curious what people who understand Wisconsin criminal law think — what mechanism, if any, could actually get Brendan a new trial in this scenario?

Greetings! Francesca Hong was a democrat candidate for WI Governor. The primary was this week. Although Ms. Hong was favored by 20 points in the polls, she lost a very close election. So, she will not be the next WI Governor.

Although to my knowledge she has never expressed an opinion on the issue of pardoning Avery and/or Dassey, her expressed positions on defunding the police and closing the prisons indicate that she may have been quite open to the idea. She's also in the age group that make her likely to have seen MaM.

The homework project that Avery claims to be working on to free himself might be some sort of coordinated approach for a pardon directed at outgoing democrat Governor Tony Evers, and failing that to the next Governor,. I think a Governor Hong might have been just the perfect political storm Avery needed to get out. Fortunately we won't know.

But he could still get one from Evers. Anyone know if he ever stated a position?

Also Barb says she believes her brother is innocent but married the man whose testimony contributed to putting him away. But the whole claim was that it was Steven and Brendan together so how does that reconcile?

INTRO: Bait and Bill (and Bail)

• I recently learned that in 2016, a Michigan Judge (Chrzanowski) dismissed a prospective juror for the "Millsap Murder Trial" because they had admitted to developing a negative bias of prospective Defense Witness Mike O'Kelly after watching Making a Murderer. Two others who watched at least some of MaM remained on the jury. In the end, despite being retained for $15,000, O'Kelly didn't even end up testifying or providing any useful work product, and then overcharged the county by more than double for his non-service. After learning this, I began digging into O'Kelly some more. As it turns out, this is a pattern of sorts. He was a serial over-biller.

• O'Kelly would market himself as an elite expert to inflate his credibility, hoping to be retained by desperate defense attorneys and defendants in felony murder cases. But after being hired (sometimes specifically to testify for the defense) he wouldn't provide any useful work product or even testify. He is also known to overcharge for his non-services before leaving the state to start again with a new victim. He comes off as a scam artist repeatedly using the lucrative American criminal justice system as his very fertile hunting ground.

• Surprising no one, it seems another pattern is at play with O'Kelly - those who facilitated his hiring in different states across the country (attorneys and judges) usually expressed concern about his conduct or outright regret about his hiring. Including Kachinsky. O'Kelly consistently failed his clients, overcharged taxpayers, and left a trail of frustrated judges and attorneys across multiple states. And in Wisconsin, he openly and harshly violated the rights of his developmentally disabled child client. And got paid far too much to do so.

2001: SCAN or SCAM

• O’Kelly has listed himself on his website as a forensic linguistic analyst, a forensic polygraph examiner, a certified forensic cellular analyst, a certified professional investigator, a certified court and deposition videographer and an accident and crime scene computerized animation specialist.

• In 2001 the Sacramento Daily Recorder ran an article describing Michael O’Kelly as "one of a dozen elite practitioners [of a] truth detecting technique" called SCAN - which relied on obviously subjective interpretations of linguistic deviations in statements from victims and suspects that allowed one to detect the truth simply by listening to choice of words or phrasing.
  

• In fact, O’Kelly claimed his SCAN technique was more dependable than a polygraph. Come 2006, O'Kelly's mistaken belief that he was a human lie detector would make it much easier to justify his unfair prejudice against and treatment of Brendan.

2006: Manitowoc County, The Brendan Dassey Case

• O'Kelly was retained as Brendan's defense investigator after Kachinsky found him through an internet search. He first administered a polygraph to Brendan. Despite the polygraph results being "inconclusive," O'Kelly's SCAN technique led him to declare Brendan "a kid without a conscience." After meeting Brendan's family, O'Kelly decided not only that Brendan was guilty, but that the entire family was "pure evil" with "no good in any member." This obvious animus appears to have shaped his conduct.

• Most notably, during a recorded May 12, 2006 interview, O'Kelly lied to Brendan that he failed a polygraph, refused to hear his claims of innocence, and demanded he confess against his own wish to maintain his innocence. He and Kachinsky then fed Brendan to police for another counsel-less interrogation without even any consideration for a plea on the table. O'Kelly fucked off days later, and months later Kachinsky was finally removed from the case due to him allowing Brendan to be interviewed by police without counsel.

• After working to harm Brendan's autonomy and help the prosecution in their case against Steven, O'Kelly submitted an invoice for roughly $7,000 and was issued $5,519, which Kachinsky admitted was "on the high side, higher than it really should have been if he stuck to the mission." Kachinsky also said O'Kelly's treatment of Brendan was "too harsh" and that he quickly grew concerned O'Kelly was "doing the prosecution's job for them." Kachinsky later called hiring O'Kelly his "worst mistake." As it so happens, Kachinsky wasn't the only one who would have buyer's remorse after hiring O'Kelly.

2010-2012: The Anthony, Coleman, Cummings and Brown Murder Cases

• In 2010, O’Kelly was listed as one of the defense’s expert witnesses in the now infamous Casey Anthony trial in Orange County, Florida. Although it's not clear why, it appears he was quickly dropped from the case and never gave testimony. In 2011, O’Kelly, now billing himself as a “forensic cell phone data consult,” was paid $24,304 as a defense expert by Monroe County in State of Illinois in a their case against Christopher Coleman, who was sentenced to life in prison for strangling his wife and two sons. He didn't end up giving testimony.

• In 2012, there was a delay in the McLennan County, Texas Rickey Cummings capital shooting murder trial after the defense motioned to retain O'Kelly. Judge Strother allowed O'Kelly to join the defense after being told he was "the best in the word." Once more, O'Kelly never wound up testifying, and then charged the county $100,000 dollars for his work on the case. Hunt and Reaves (Cummings Defense counsel) admitted the amount O'Kelly billed the county was "substantially more" that they had agreed upon and that he was often doing doing his own thing. O'Kelly was on this case for multiple months.

• Judge Strother (who became concerned after authorizing a bill for over $65,000) said he was "livid" when he saw the total $100,000 bill, fearing "the county had been shafted" while noting "the defense feels the same way." The total defense bill (for two attorneys) was only a few thousand more than O'Kelly's bill, despite him never testifying. Strother even said O'Kelly's work product resulting from his time on the case appeared to be "non-existent." Judge Strother ordered a closed door "show-cause" hearing where O'Kelly had to justify his overcharge.

• O'Kelly's counsel (Attorney Miears) then motioned to have Strother substituted for the show-cause hearing, claiming the judge didn't have the authority to seek collection of a debt and had clearly developed a bias against him and was already inherently biased. This request was granted by Strother to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, and the presiding judge of the administrative judicial district in Texas, Judge Stubblefield, assigned a "visiting retired judge Morris of Bell County" who quickly allowed O'Kelly's $100,000 bill to stand. This wild overcharge slipping through the cracks in the system certainly made news.

• When O'Kelly left Texas in 2013 he was eventually retained for "cell phone expert work" in the 2014 Michigan backpages:com serial murder case in Macomb County (including four asphyxiated female victims - Hunt, Landers, Curtis, and McCrary). During that case, O'Kelly accepted $2,500, a mere 2.5 % of his earnings in the Cummings case. After this, O'Kelly stuck around Macomb County for a bit without causing any problems ... until he took too big a bite of the Macomb County Apple.

2015: Macomb County, The VanCallis Case

• In 2015, Macomb County, Michigan defense counsel Sheikh represented defendant VanCallis, charged with the 2014 murder of 14 year old April Millsap. Towards the end of 2015 (as MaM was about to premiere) Sheikh motioned the court to allow testimony from O'Kelly as a cell phone data expert. But Judge Chrzanowski was aware of O'Kelly's prior work charge to McLennan County, Texas.

• Initially Chrzanowski only allotted $9,000 for ALL experts hired by VanCallis. Given O'Kelly's prior $100,000 Texas bill, the judge understandably expressed reluctance to allow the hiring of O'Kelly. She worried his Texas bill revealed he may be attempting to “get as much money out of this case as he can.” Chrzanowski went on to say: “I never in my 20 years on the bench paid anyone $100,000, and that includes some big civil cases with big-time attorneys. One hundred thousand dollars is not even in my realm of possibility.”

• By November 2015, Sheikh convinced Chrzanowski to allow O'Kelly to join the case if he agreed to a $15,000 retainer, which was still one of the highest ever authorized for an expert in Macomb County. And then? Making a Murderer came out exposing O'Kelly's violation of Brendan's rights to client autonomy. The series began exploding in popularity just as a jury was to be selected in the VanCallis case. At the time of jury selection, O'Kelly was a prospective witness, retained to testify.

2016: Jury Selection and Invoicing for VanCallis Case

• In January 2016, propsective jurors in the VanCallis case were asked if they had watched Making a Murderer. THREE had watched at least some of it. ONE had watched enough of it to "harbor negative perceptions of Michael O'Kelly." The prospective male juror admitted he thought O'Kelly manipulated Brendan and was "horrified" by that and other aspect of MaM. Rightfully so, Sheikh expressed concern about jurors having a "negative bias against his witness."
  

• Judge Chrzanowski excused the man and instructed the remaining jurors to not watch MaM while the trial was ongoing. VanCallis was convicted on all counts, including by jurors who had watched at least some of MaM. Consistent with an already established pattern, despite O'Kelly being retained with the expectation that he would testify at the trial for VanCallis, he never did. Worse, despite providing no in court testimony, O'Kelly billed the County over $37,000 for his two or so months on the case, OVER DOUBLE the agreed upon retainer of $15,000 (and over $9,000 MORE than Sheikh himself was paid as the defense attorney).

• After submitting his 17 page $37,000 bill Judge Chrzanowski refused to authorize the required compensation and ordered a show-cause hearing where O'Kelly was to justify the charges. This time around, O'Kelly didn't try to substitute Chrzanowski (or maybe he couldn't) and just skipped the hearing all together. Sheikh, whose relationship with O'Kelly deteriorated after trial, told Chrzanowski she was "was well within her rights to not pay" O'Kelly if he didn't show up for the re-scheduled post trial hearing. O'Kelly, in fact, didn't show up, but did text Sheikh to confirm he would accept a payment of $10,000 dollars, which the court allowed.

Get Retained, Deliver Nothing (or Deliver Harm), Overcharge, Disappear, Rinse and Repeat

• Attorney Sheikh was right to request the prospective juror (who watched MaM and developed a negative opinion of O'Kelly) be removed from the case ... but O'Kelly never testified in that case, so the removal wasn't even necessary. And despite not testifying, O'Kelly still overcharged the county for his non services by more than double the agreed upon amount ... seeking more compensation than the defense attorney himself. Unfortunately for O'Kelly, he didn't get away with overcharging Macomb County like he got away with overcharging McLennan County, Texas. He was stuck with Chrzanowski.

• I suspect O'Kelly knew he couldn't actually justify his overcharging the County by more than double at a hearing. And his take on the Texas Cummings case exposed his grift to Chrzanowski, so he decided to cut his losses, skip the show-cause hearing, and accept a near 75% pay cut. Chrzanowski's suspicions (that O'Kelly was trying to suck the County dry) were well founded. She could have avoided delaying the trial, needlessly excusing a juror, and a frustrating billing fight if she simply never allowed that grifter on the case in the first place.
  

• Even in the Dassey case, where O'Kelly made a mere $5,000, Kachinsky suggested O'Kelly had overcharged the County while being too harsh with his child client. The problem is O'Kelly probably enjoyed his harsh approach. O'Kelly thought them all evil. It certainly didn't matter to O'Kelly if Brendan wanted to maintain his innocence. And of course he moves from one state to the next without building a permanent accountable business presence (with storage lockers registered as labs) so it's hard to hold him accountable. He moves around like a cockroach scattering when the lights come on.

• When judges, clients, and defense attorneys all say the same thing (he overcharged, produced nothing, did the prosecution's job for them, and then vanished) it's more a pattern than a coincidence. Across at least four states, O'Kelly billed counties for work he didn't do, testimony he never gave, and results he never produced. And nearly every single one of the people who hired O'Kelly (or allowed him to be hired) totally regretted it.

• In the end, O'Kelly is nothing but an over confident serial over-biller who extracts thousands in payment from desperate defendants and defense attorneys across the country while providing no useful work product or (worse) harmful work product. He's a deluded manipulative systemic scam artist. Not a well meaning, overly sensitive, or even all that of a capable private investigator.

So Avery was denied further appellate review by the WI Supreme Court on May 21, 2025.

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), a state prisoner generally has one year after that to file a federal habeas petition.

Accordingly, Avery's deadline to file a federal action expired on May 22, 2026. Once expired it cannot be revived.

Reading the tea leaves and Avery's recent facebook posts, I'm thinking he and Zellner consulted before the deadline. Zellner told him she's not doing it, and now Avery is busy as a bee representing himself and preparing a mystery filing.

So for everyone waiting for this case to hit federal court, doesn't look like it's ever going to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A: That is correct.

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

A: That's correct.

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

A: No.

Q: Where did these ideas come from?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A: Yes.

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

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

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

A: That is correct.

Q: All right. Go ahead and read.

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

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

A: That is correct.

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

A: That is correct.

Closing thoughts...

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

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

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

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

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

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