Topic

making a murderer

3 petitions

Update posted 1 year ago

Petition to Wisconsin State House, Wisconsin State Senate, Wisconsin Governor

Please Pass Juvenile Interrogation Protection Law In Wisconsin

My name is Barbara Tadych. My son Brendan Dassey was wrongfully convicted of murder in the state of Wisconsin in 2007, on the basis of a coerced false confession to the rape and murder of Teresa Halbach. Please join with me in asking the state of Wisconsin to enact new legislation in order to prevent other minors from suffering the same fate as my son Brendan. Brendan’s case highlights the need for the enactment of legislation which would require that an attorney be present during a custodial interrogation of a minor. There is no evidence whatsoever to support my son’s conviction, and physical evidence flatly contradicts the statements he gave to his interrogators. At the time he confessed, Brendan was only 16 years old. My son spent his childhood struggling with a learning disability. At the time of his interrogation, he had an IQ of about 70. He had no criminal record, and he was not a trouble maker. Police initially turned their attention to him because he was a defense witness for his uncle, Steven Avery, who at the time had been accused of murdering Halbach. The Netflix series “Making a Murderer” has brought renewed attention to Brendan’s case. The 10-part documentary details the murder of Teresa Halbach and the controversy surrounding her death. Video clips of Brendan’s interrogation, which are presented in the documentary, have left many viewers wondering how Brendan’s confession was ever deemed admissible at trial. The video clips seen in the documentary, focus on Brendan’s final interrogation before his arrest. That interrogation session was the fourth time Brendan had been interrogated without a parent or an attorney present, all within the span of 48 hours. Audio and video recordings show how interrogators quickly brought Brendan under their control. Video footage shows that Brendan was willing to go along with any story line they suggested. Working to build a narrative that Brendan was with his uncle Steven at the time of the murder, investigators told Brendan that Avery had done something to the victim’s head, and asked him what it was. Brendan responded that Steven had cut her hair. No matter how many times the interrogators asked what else Steven had done to the victim’s head, they drew a blank from Brendan. Finally, they became frustrated and told Brendan that Halbach had been shot in the head, at which point he agreed. When the case went to trial, the jury was led to believe that Brendan told police during questioning that Halbach had been shot in the head. Just like that, unreliable information obtained from an improper interrogation of a juvenile, was presented as factual damning evidence in court. The head wound evidence is just one example to show how police were able to manipulate a juvenile into providing unreliable information. In fact, the entire narrative which resulted from Brendan’s interrogation, makes no sense at all. I spoke with Brendan shortly after his final interrogation ended. He recanted his confession the moment he was out of reach of his interrogators. I asked him why he told the police that he was involved. Brendan responded, “They got to my head.” It was at this time that I knew my son had been wrongfully pressured by police to provide false information. I know my son. He was not capable at the time of dealing with the overwhelming stress which was put on him by those detectives. I urge everyone to please view Brendan’s interrogation videos to see what I am talking about. If you do, I am confident that you will see that two seasoned interrogators manipulated my son into providing false information. The story that Brendan provided to the police just doesn’t add up. According to Brendan’s confession, he and Steven raped and repeatedly stabbed Halbach in Steven’s bedroom, while she was chained to a bed. Forensic tests, however, revealed no trace of the victim’s blood, fingerprints or DNA in Steven’s room, or, for that matter, anywhere at all in his residence. Nor was any physical trace of Brendan’s presence found in the room or in Steven’s residence. Police photos show that the premises were undisturbed except for ordinary clutter. Not one scrap of physical evidence suggested that a bloody assault had taken place there. My heart breaks when I watch Brendan’s police interrogation videos. The footage shows that Brendan had no idea what was happening to him. He was gullible and easily bullied into giving false information. He agreed to an impossible murder scenario that simply could not have happened. If Brendan had an attorney with him during his interrogations; this completely unreliable narrative would have never developed in the first place. According to the Bluhm Legal Clinic: “researchers have concluded that most youth – even those who might be considered "street-smart" – simply do not understand their Miranda rights to counsel and to remain silent. Accordingly, these children do not exercise those essential rights and are thus left alone during police interrogation, without the assistance of counsel, a friendly adult, or their parents. Too often, the child's resulting statement is involuntary or unreliable.” The United States Supreme Court describes a custodial interrogation as an interrogation where: "a reasonable person would have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave." Even if a minor has the legal right to get up and walk out, the vast majority of minors would have no idea that they had that option. My son certainly did not. Therefore, it is reasonable to view any interrogation of a minor as a custodial interrogation. For these reasons, new legislation should impose the following safeguards: Require that an attorney be present during any custodial interrogation of a minor. This should be viewed as a nonwaivable right. Require law enforcement to inform a minor before an interrogation begins that he or she could be charged as an adult based on information obtained during an interrogation. Wisconsin law currently falls short, as it only requires law enforcement to immediately attempt to notify the child’s parent or guardian. The state does not specify whether juveniles have the right to the presence of an attorney or a parent during questioning. Thankfully, in 2005, the Wisconsin Supreme Court exercised its supervisory power to require that all custodial interrogations of juveniles be recorded. The recording of my son’s interrogation provides a clear cut example of why minors need further protection. The Bluhm Legal Clinic has modeled legislation which can be used as a guideline for legislators looking to improve the system. Their recommendations can be viewed here: http://www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/wrongfulconvictionsyouth/resources/legislation/ The state of Wisconsin made a promising move in the right direction by recognizing the need for recorded interrogations. They now need to further their efforts by enacting legislation to protect minors during interrogations. This petition is managed by Injustice Anywhere for Barbara Tadych. FreeBrendan.org Free Brendan Facebook Page Justice for Brendan Dassey Facebook Group

Barbara Tadych
13,642 supporters
Update posted 1 year ago

Petition to wisconsin department of justice, Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation, Wisconsin Governor, Barack Obama, WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF REGULATION & LICENSING

Strip Ken Kratz law license for being a sexual predator

  http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime_and_courts/disgraced-former-da-kratz-cited-by-regulators-for-alleged-sexual/article_4602156e-236a-11e1-b8b2-001871e3ce6c.html   Disgraced former DA Kratz cited by regulators for alleged sexual assault     The state Department of Justice investigated an allegation that former Calumet County District Attorney Ken Kratz sexually assaulted a woman he previously prosecuted but declined to charge him because investigators felt the witness lacked credibility, records show. The Office of Lawyer Regulation found merit in the allegation, however, citing Kratz for two ethics violations related to the incident, according to an 11-count complaint filed late last month. It is the most serious allegation in the ethics case filed against Kratz, who resigned in October 2010 after it was revealed the long-time district attorney sent 30 sexually charged text messages to a crime victim half his age while prosecuting her ex-boyfriend for domestic violence. The DOJ investigated the incident and several others involving Kratz but concluded in March that criminal charges were not warranted. In a memo closing the department's investigation into the alleged sexual assault, Assistant Attorney General Tom Storm wrote the woman would not make a plausible witness. He cited her "documented mental illness," three previous convictions — for making a false representation, retail theft and disorderly conduct — and evidence there was "consent to the sexual contact." Storm also referred to the woman's "status as a victim or witness with problematic inconsistencies in four other cases" but provided no details.  The woman reported the alleged incident to her probation agent after the sexting scandal broke last fall, but the records quote the agent as saying he wasn't sure of the validity of the woman's complaint. The 89-page investigative report makes no mention of interviewing Kratz. However, Kratz acknowledged to the Office of Lawyer Regulation he had a sexual relationship with the 44-year-old woman but it was "private and consensual." Reasonable doubt Steve Means, executive assistant at DOJ, said the agency's investigation was thorough. "Any time there's an allegation of sexual assault by a person in power, it's a serious matter and we treat it that way," Means said. In this case, Means said, the agency was obliged not to prosecute because it concluded the state could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed. "Any time you go into a prosecutorial decision, you have to look at whether a jury will believe your witnesses," Means said. Still, the OLR — which operates under a lower burden of proof — apparently found the account credible, charging Kratz with two counts related to the alleged incident: sexual harassment and engaging in "offensive personality." It seeks a six-month suspension of Kratz's law license based on the totality of his alleged conduct. Kratz's attorney, Robert Bellin of Neenah, noted his client was cleared of any criminal conduct. He declined to comment on the OLR filing.     Attempts to reach the alleged victim were not successful. Her boyfriend, who asked not to be named to avoid identifying her, said the woman told him she "does not want to see somebody get off scot-free" but is afraid of being "smeared."  Fearful about reporting In the four-page summary of the DOJ interview, the alleged victim at times appeared to blame herself for the incident. But the scenario she described appeared far from consensual. The woman, whose name was deleted from the investigative report, told agents Kratz prosecuted her three times in Calumet County between 2006 and 2008. Then, "out of the blue," she said Kratz asked to visit her at home between Thanksgiving and Christmas 2009. After arriving, Kratz reportedly told the woman several times he knew everything about her and could make trouble for her. She said Kratz then discussed bondage and ordered her to perform a sex act. The woman claims he also groped her and was quoted telling the agents "she was a fool to have let him." She described the incident as "really scary" because Kratz had "such seniority" over her and bragged about hitting women who did not "submit" to him. "It should be noted that throughout the interview, (the woman) was visibly upset," special agents Kyra Schallhorn and Joann Joy wrote. "She was crying and shaking while talking about this matter. (The woman) kept stating that she had done something wrong, and she questioned whether she would be going to prison for it."  According to the DOJ report, Kratz called the woman 40 to 50 times after the incident and came to her apartment a couple of times "but she pretended she was not home." "`He's a pig,'" the agents quoted the alleged victim as saying. "`What he did was wrong.'" In its own report summarizing the incident, the OLR concluded Kratz "had forcible sex with an emotionally vulnerable woman after previously prosecuting the woman." 'Theoretically' consensual The alleged victim was among 15 women, including two Calumet County social workers, a law student seeking a pardon and a handful of crime victims, who told DOJ agents they were subjected to inappropriate statements and text messages from Kratz. The investigation was related to removal proceedings launched by then-Gov. Jim Doyle, which led to Kratz's resignation.  Three women, including the woman in the 2009 incident, claimed Kratz had sexual contact with them. One of the women declined to provide any information about an alleged 1989 incident. The third woman said the contact, which allegedly occurred in 1999, was "theoretically" consensual because she agreed because Kratz said he could help her regain custody of her children. Kratz was Calumet County's district attorney for 18 years. The crime victim who received the sexually charged messages sued Kratz in U.S. District Court in Milwaukee alleging sexual harassment. In his defense, Kratz claims immunity, saying the messages were sent as part of his official duties. Means said his agency declined to defend Kratz. The state also intervened in the federal case, arguing it should not be held liable for Kratz's behavior.   http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime_and_courts/disgraced-former-da-kratz-pleads-no-contest-to-six-ethics/article_ef9d0630-b701-11e1-aa0d-001a4bcf887a.html  Disgraced former DA Kratz pleads no contest to six ethics violations  Based on the info in these articles I feel Attorney Ken Kratz needs to be stripped of right to practice law / disbarred due to the rape accusations and sexual harassment with at least 4 victims to which  he pleas no contest to some of the charges. We, as citizens nationwide need to make an example of him that we will not tolerate this from legal workers including but not limited to police and attorneys. Attorney Kratz need to at the very least be STRIPPED OF HIS LAW LICENSE for life!!!

KARLA BOLDT
802 supporters