that Bynum would have prevailed on the motion to suppress had he testified. The decision of the Indiana Court of Appeals on the question of prejudice is acceptable for another reason. That court filled in the gap left by the postconviction court by reasonably answering the question of how to weigh Bynum’s testimony against the officers’ testimony and the signed waiver forms: At trial, the three detectives provided consistent testimony that contradicted Bynum’s assertions and the State introduced Bynum’s two signed waiver forms executed before each statement was made. Bynum is correct that a defendant’s assertions cannot be discounted merely because of his status as a defendant or the heinousness 162 F.3d 481 (7th Cir.1998); United States v. Madison, 689 F.2d 1300, 1308 (7th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Dean, 550 F.3d 626,
holding that counsels failure to move to suppress the defendants confession constituted ineffective assistance because it was obvious that the confession would have been suppressed holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that defendant had waived the opportunity for a suppression hearing on his confession by first moving to suppress the confession orally at the start of trial when no motion to suppress was filed no hearing requested and no objection to the admission of the statements was made holding that petitioner was not prejudiced by counsels decision not to call sole witness to petitioners alleged beating at suppression hearing because testimony of arresting officers and assistant attorneys as well as absence of physical evidence of coercion made it unlikely that motion to suppress the confessions would have been granted holding that consistent testimony given by three officers made it unlikely that defendants motion to suppress his confession as coerced would have been granted even though two witnesses to the interrogation had not testified at suppression hearing holding that testimony given by a defendant in support of a motion to suppress cannot be admitted as evidence of his guilt at trial