Dassey Trial Notes – 24 April, 2007

Psychologist Robert Gordon testified about Brendan Dassey’s suggestibility. He performed an interview with Dassey and a battery of tests. He viewed the March 1, 2006 interrogation as well. Gordon was not allowed to testify as an expert on interrogation techniques nor was he allowed to state an opinion on truth or falsity of the confession.

He found that Dassey was socially introverted and alienated. His rank in these areas was at the 2nd percentile. He was at the 1st percentile in social avoidance. Dassey was also very shy, passive, and subdued.

The results from the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale showed Dassey to be highly suggestible and demonstrated both shifting and yielding. Gordon concluded that Dassey was highly suggestible when subjected to leading and pressure.

This witness seemed to stumble a lot and was hard to follow at times. I feel that defense witnesses need jury practice. On the law enforcement side, testifying is a part of the training. If defense lawyers want to do better, they can examine how to make sure their experts are presenting themselves in a smooth manner. Unfortunately, often presentation counts more that facts. Such is the power of suggestion.

Special Prosecutor Ken Kratz sort of accused Gordon of cherry picking. Then he went on to cherry pick questions from the MMPIA until Gordon stopped him. Kratz also wanted to emphasize Dassey’s IQ.

Kratz said that Dassey resisted suggestion twelve times during the interrogation, although leading by the interrogators does overcome the resistance.

Kratz went into business of claiming that Kayla Avery made statements about body parts in December, 2005 which is false. I would like to see the defense object to this tactic.

Kratz asked that when interrogators provided Dassey with a true answer and Dassey agreed would that be a true response. Gordon replied not necessarily.

On redirect by Fremgen, things went a little better. It was established that IQ by itself was not a factor. Questioning about individual questions from the MMPIA was misleading. The consistency of suggestibility conclusion with tests was very strong.

The defense rested.

Kratz was back wanting a rebuttal witness. Fremgen said the witness was from Calumet County and would probably do what Kratz wanted. But, if Kratz wanted to use this witness to testify against the testing procedures and results, he had no problem.

Prosecution rebuttal witness Psychologist James Armentrout testified that he did not like to use the MMPI. He also felt that results such as anxious and so forth were meaningless. He called tests like the MMPI “mail order.”

He claimed that the language used in the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale was not appropriate for a small town Wisconsin person. He claimed that a finding of suggestibility meant nothing.

He had to admit that he has no background or study in suggestibility and was not familiar with any research on the subject. He had not interviewed Brendan Dassey. He had not read any research by experts dealing with the subject.

Armentrout was a more polished witness than Gordon, but his knowledge of suggestibility was near zero. We’ll have to wait to see whether polish is more important than substance.

Kratz did not renew his call for the Reid Associates testimony. Perhaps he found that the technique of the investigators strayed substantially from the Reid method.