Talk:Brendan Dassey

Jury tampering??

Court documents showed jury tamperiing?? That's utter nonsense. Per the cited source, two deputies allowed an unauthorized person to deliver pizza to the jury. That is not jury tampering. If jury tampering had been found, Dassey's lawyers would have used that as a grounds for appeal. They didn't. If jury tampering had been found, the court would have ordered a new trial. It didn't. It appears that someone really doesn't understand the legal proceedings they're reading about and then writing about in this article. 32.218.32.208 (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brendan Dassey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160815064636/http://www.stltoday.com/entertainment/television/us-court-orders-release-of-brendan-dassey-from-making-a/article_07be9b1e-4770-5194-804e-823dcbbb90df.html to http://www.stltoday.com/entertainment/television/us-court-orders-release-of-brendan-dassey-from-making-a/article_07be9b1e-4770-5194-804e-823dcbbb90df.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

vote was 4-1

A Judge that decides not to vote is not a vote. 4 voted that his conviction was correct, 1 voted against, and 2 did not vote, Therefor the vote was 4-1, not the npov 4-3 claimed here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:216:7400:84D5:F041:FF3F:CFE4 (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for this information? The two existing sources say the result was 4-3. Incidentally, I reinstated the information about his interviews being 'pressured' - it is mentioned multiple times by the court, the judge and the press and so it is not frivolous or one-sided to note it here. AJ2265 (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Ref Cite Court Quote

Was my Ref Cite Court quote in edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brendan_Dassey&diff=846243672&oldid=846240462 too big? I feel it is too large based on others that I have reviewed. Template:Cite court doesn't go into length. I kept it that large since SCOTUS is reviewing and sent it to conference to decide whether to hear it. Simply Reversed and remanded left a lot out. My cite quote: quote=Given the state courts’ reasonable findings of fact and the absence of clearly established Supreme Court precedent that compels relief for Dassey, the district court’s grant of habeas relief is REVERSED. The case is REMANDED to the district court with instructions to dismiss the petition.P37307 (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi P37307, thanks for your query. I don't think there's a limit on the number of characters in the field, but I may be mistaken. It doesn't display red error text for me, it merely truncates it - you might want to pop into #wikimedia-tech on IRC for more; I only have an intermediate understanding of template syntax. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit: Firefly has put an example fix at User:Firefly/sandbox. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

"Is a convicted murderer"

I made a minor edit to the first line, which previously started that Mr. Dassey "is an American convicted murderer from..." Given the explanation - later in the same sentence - of the allegations against him, and of his being sentenced in the very next sentence, this small phrase was redundant. Worse, it beggars the question; reffering to him as a murderer makes it sound uncontroversial that he did indeed commit murder. Given the uncertainty and disagreement about Mr. Dassey's guilt, this is not a reasonable way to open the article. At most, it would be reasonable to say that he "has been convicted of murder", rather than "is a convicted murdered", although again, it's redundant and unneccessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.157 (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Update: Aaaaand it's already been changed back. The notion that wikipedia is an open encyclopedia is horseshit, and you're lying to yourselves. Now I'll be less nice: a conclusory statement about a disputed conclusion is irresponsible bullshit, whoever wrote it like that clearly has an agenda, and is a hack with no credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.157 (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm the one who changed it back. It is standard that we put what primarily makes an individual notable in the lead sentence. Dassey is not notable for being "an American", he is primarily notable for being a convicted murderer. Some other examples: "William Henry Gates III (born October 28, 1955) is an American business magnate, investor, author, philanthropist, humanitarian, and principal founder of Microsoft Corporation.", "Barack Hussein Obama II (/bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/ (About this sound listen);[1] born August 4, 1961) is an American politician who served as the 44th President of the United States from January 20, 2009, to January 20, 2017.". That's not some special case here; that's a routine thing we always do. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The problem with your analogy is that it is entirely uncontroversial that Barack Hussein Obama II is a politician. Likewise that William Henry Gates II is a business magnate, etc. Both things can be taken as fact. Brendan Dassey has been convicted of murder. That's clearly uncontrovertial. But that Brenday Dassey "is" a murderer - even if you seemingly qualify it by putting the word "convicted" in front - is irresponsible and misleading, given the incredible degree of controversey with regards to his guilt. And in fact, it breaks your own rule. Brendan Dassey is NOT primarily known as a convicted murderer. He's actually primarily known as the subject of a television show regarding his wrongful conviction. And in any case, a rule such as that is fine as a background rule, but clearly - obviously - should never be employed when it subtracts from, rather than adds to, the factual accuracy and clarity of the article. That's writing 101. But I actually suspect you knew that, and rather have certain opinions about Mr. Dassey's case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.252.213.210 (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The statement is that he is a convicted murderer, which is a simple matter of fact. Of course, if his conviction were overturned or vacated, we would change to reflect that as soon as that were to happen. But disagreement over whether he should have been convicted does not change the fact that he was. And no, I don't really have an opinion on the case one way or the other, nor would it matter if I did. Insofar as the TV show, that raised his profile, yes, but it raised his profile for exactly the same thing—having been convicted of murder. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

"Is a convicted murderer" is accurate, but continuing with "was party to" takes a side. While it's true he's officially a convicted murderer, whether or not he was party to the events described is under debate. Subvisser5 (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus on this talk page as to the appropriate lead sentence for this entry. Subvisser5 has the controlling entry, but it is clearly disputed. This person is known for the controversies surrounding his conviction, and the entry is taking a position which presumes one side of a highlighy disputed discussion which is at the heart of the entire reason why he is know as an established figure. JohnCookJo (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I’ll reiterate the point: the phrase “convicted murderer” is not an objective fact. It is objective that he was convicted but it is not objective that he is a murderer. Plus, his “status as a convicted murderer” is not definitively what he is best known for. As was already pointed out, he is best known to most of the country as a main character in the Netflix Series. In fact, the majority of the public knows him ONLY in the context of the Netflix series—so objectively, he is best known for his appearance on TV—not his conviction. This, however, is by no means his only significant identity. For example, in academic forensic psych research settings, he is best known for being the prototypical consequence of coercive interrogation techniques. Leading experts in the field of false confessions and interrogation techniques, like Saul Kassin, have written numerous academic papers concerning his case. I would argue his status as a “convicted murderer” is far less relevant than his status as the most famous example of a juvenile who has falsely confessed. Papaicey (talk) 07:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

His interrogation was cohersed anyone with a single brain cell couldsee that,he knew absolutely nothing they put words in his mouth it was disgusting I live in England I would never trust the American justice system one bit let him out. Maureen watson (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Several people have observed that when a case is famous because of the dubiousness of the conviction, the label "murderer" is problematic. Still the status quo has been cemented by a WP:BADHIDDENTEXT. Nice. Perhaps WP:BLP is relevant in this situation? —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 13:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

You need to reread WP:BADHIDDENTEXT. The hidden text was appropriate to advise users to seek consensus on the talk page. The hidden text could have been written better, but removing it altogether wasn't correct, either. 13:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC) Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The guideline says that if there is only a local consensus against making a certain edit, hidden text should be worded softly and "suggest to the editor to consult the talk page". Is there a local consensus that might motivate a softly worded hidden text? —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 20:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2018

"Early Life" indicates the salvage yard is located in "Two Rivers, Wisconsin" -- please change to "Gibson, Wisconsin".

This mistake was based on sources that mistook the location based on the salvage yard's *mailing* address. Gibson does not have a post office and falls under the same 54241 zip code as the neighboring city of Two Rivers, so every address in the town is addressed to "Two Rivers" while actually being in the municipality of Gibson.

Official county map can be seen here: https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/travel/road/hwy-maps/county-maps/manitowoc.pdf Border of 54241 Zip Code as shown on Google Maps (zoom out and notice this is noted as a "Postal Code" boundary, not a municipal boundary): https://www.google.com/maps/place/54241 Border of actual Two Rivers, WI on Google Maps (note salvage yard is NOT within): https://www.google.com/maps/place/Two+Rivers,+WI Border of Town of Gibson as shown on Google Maps (note salvage yard is within): https://www.google.com/maps/place/Gibson,+WI/ 802drew (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: If this were a mistake, please provide a link to the retraction issued by the original source.  Spintendo  09:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Check that original source you speak of. It's a rambling .pdf on some random bloke who refers to himself as "Edward Wayne Edwards, The Serial Killer You NEVER Heard Of." I'd sooner trust 802drew than anything this Edward Wayne Edwards spouts.184.160.35.20 (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, that document is a shining example of a self-published source. I've removed the entire passage per WP:BLPSPS. Please feel free to reinstate any or all of the removed wording if a reliable source can be provided. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)