Wednesday, December 30, 2015

Making A Murderer: Avery Confronted With Murder Allegation

Here is a good lesson about a Reliable Denial.  

It should not take a long time to say it; it should be first and foremost as a priority.  Note Gov. Chris Christie's analysis where it took almost an hour to produce what everyone had gathered to hear.  

It must be freely spoken and not parroting language.  

Therefore:  

In an interview, the subject is given many opportunities to say, "I did not kill Teresa" on his own.  

Eventually, the interview moves to interrogation where he is accused of killing her. 

If he said  "No I did not kill her" in response to "you killed her", it is not a reliable denial, as it was not produced freely.  It is parroted language. 

Once this begins, it may continue, but it is not reliable.  

This case is a perfect case of emotion versus science, where the documentary's stitching of events, paring down of information and use of music is intended to persuade, emotionally, in one direction, while the statements go in the other. 

I go into publishing analysis on this blog knowing that the audience is likely to believe the analysis.  The longer the reader has been here, the more readily he or she will accept the conclusion because of the understanding of principle and the historical accuracy.  

Newer readers need lengthy explanations which are time consuming.
Blog analysis is not complete analysis, which is something that is saved for law enforcement or human resources who need far greater detail.

There are some cases in which I go into publishing knowing that there will be resistance, such as the Jonbenet Ramsey case or Michael Jackson.  I recognize certain resistance due to emotional connection to stories. 

Some resistance comes in politicians' analysis, which is not so much emotional, but partisan.  The most common 'rebuttal' is, "yes, but George W also said..."

When I first published analysis on the murder of Amanda Blackburn  I expected much more resistance than I received.  This took me by surprise, initially.  When I first published analysis, we had only his initial statement.  Later, he helped reduce resistance due to his behavior and statements. 

Making a Murderer, however, is one in which I expect few people to agree with the findings, and these will be the long term readers.  
This is due strictly to emotionalism and speaks to the power of propaganda by an unfair documentary.  My expectation is that emotionalism will 'press' arguments; rather than suggest them, against the conclusion.  This is most evident where someone disagrees with the conclusion (Avery killed Teresa) and 'forces' arguments, trying to defuse the use of principle.  One anonymous poster even wrote, "Statement Analysis is best used on the middle class..." as if she has read all sorts of statistics showing that Statement Analysis doesn't work on someone with a lesser IQ who uses the word "ain't" in his vocabulary.  This is to show an emotionally driven opinion that strains to find support.  

It is fascinating to read and it is, itself, useful for learning, especially when it comes to explaining analysis.  When one can speak on and on and avoid a Reliable Denial, but finally someone says it (it took almost 60 minutes before Chris Christie made a denial about Bridgegate.  This is similar to 'adding to' the denial:  it is not reliable. ).   

Next, guilty people can make a reliable denial, though very rare, but when pointed to their denial, will be incapable of lying about their lie.  

The person will not say, "I told the truth", while addressing his lie.  John Ramsey, after hearing analysis either first hand or more likely through his attorneys, took to the microphone and addressed the analysis by giving a complete social introduction and a reliable denial.  

Anyone can parrot.  

It is when we get someone into the free editing process that we can get to the truth.  Even the world's greatest statement analyst will get caught lying when he enters the free editing process.  

What about Steven Avery?

This documentary series, as unfair as it is, is a most valuable tool for learning analysis, as there are so many deceptive statements, and an over "narrator" behind it, 

We are fortunate to have the transcripts from the documentary available.  I have not come across something this challenging where the emotions are set up versus the language.   The emotions are manipulated through careful editing, music, and camera work.  

It is amazing to see "Jodi" got arrested for "smiling", with musical score, but only letters on the screen telling us she was arrested 3 more times, leaving some viewers to think she was arrested for something related to Avery.  It is clever manipulation of the audience.  

The documentary portrayed Avery, repeatedly, as a victim.  He was a victim of injustice in that he was imprisoned for a rape that he did not commit.  The documentary sought to transpose this to the murder case.  It's portrayal was one sided. 

For example, Steven Avery killed a cat.  He said he threw it and it landed in the fire. 

What is missing is that he soaked the cat in oil and added some gasoline before throwing it in the fire.  The killing of an animal and the use of fire in this deviant manner is, for criminologists and others, a link to sexual deviance.  None of this is highlighted.  We are given only his deceptive use of passivity.  

Here is the second installment where we get to specific references to murder. 

We look for a reliable denial where he speaks freely and in priority.  For that which makes up a reliable denial, see the prior entry of analysis on his closing statement.  There, too, it was expected that he would state, first and foremost, "I didn't kill Teresa.  Her killer is still out there and people are in danger as they put me in jail while the killer is out there..." in his own words, employing his own linguistic subjective dictionary, and means of communication. 

Remember:  he speaks with the presupposition of being understood.  He speaks for the purpose of communication; therefore, we may analyze his statements.  I have edited out the intermingled interviews with others to focus on Avery's words.  Analysis of others involved will be in separate articles. 

female reporter: "She was there to photograph this 1989 Dodge Caravan. Avery regularly advertises in Auto Trader magazine and says Halbach has visited his home on assignment several times in the past year. Did she mention any other appointments that day or anything like that?"

Avery:  No, I don't think so. Because most of the time, she takes a picture and then she writes down the serial number... and then she comes and collects the money and... and that's about it

Reporter:  OK. So what kinds of questions are police asking you?

 Avery:  Just when she was out here. What time. Around. That was about it. 

Reporter:  "Did they ask you to take a polygraph or anything like that?"

Asking about the polygraph increases the affirmation of an allegation against him.  

Avery:   "No. No. Tonight the cops come and they asked me if I remembered anything and I told them no. You know, then they asked me if they can come in the house and check the house over. I said, "I got no problem with that. Come on in." So they checked the house all over. You know, everything was fine and then they left. "

As his mind is focused upon the time of their departure, it is a signal that he is withholding information relevant to the question, at this specific point in time.  

 female reporter: They blocked off about a four-mile stretch of the highway that surrounds the Steven Avery home. And earlier, hazmat vehicles also arrived on the scene, as well as the Great Lakes K-9 Search and Rescue. 

Jodi: It's just bullshit that they can go and search our house and nobody there. 

Steven: Well, yeah, they got the whole yard tore apart

This is a time where Avery can assert that he did not kill Teresa, nor cause her disappearance, in his own wording.  Guilty parties will seek to avoid direct lies as they cause the most internal stress.  This stress is seen in the disruption of the processing of language and is not only dependent upon a conscience.  Those who feel no guilt nor remorse will also avoid the 'confrontation' that is internal, when using a direct lie.  The direct lie is avoided more than 90% of the time that deception is present.  This is why even the words of someone who is deceptive are so valuable to the investigation. 

Jodi: Do they? 

Steven: Yeah, the whole shit. 

Jodi: I'm scared. 

Steven: Yeah, me too. 

Due to the wrongful rape conviction, this is a justifiable fear, but it is also another opportunity to deny the allegation.  

Jodi: Well, not scared, just worried. 

Steven: Yeah


 Do you think your two brothers could've had anything to do with this?

 No. No. Not at all. Look, anybody can go down the road at nighttime, you know, when everybody's sleeping. You know, just drive in. My brother ain't gonna hear nothing. 

So who do you think did something with her? 

I got no idea. If the county did something, or whatever, in trying to plant evidence on me or something, I don't know. I wouldn't put nothing past the county. 

 female reporter: What is your response to Mr. Avery's comment that Manitowoc County may be trying to pull one over on him? 

Yeah, that I'm happy to talk about. That's something that, again, District Attorney Rohrer and Judge Fox and really the Manitowoc Sheriff's Department and other law enforcement community was very sensitive to... any appearance at all of conflict. Not just an actual conflict, but any appearance of conflict, I think. Again, talking about District Attorney Rohrer, the foresight that he had to bring in another agency, a law enforcement agency, like Calumet County, another prosecutor like the Calumet County District Attorney, was meant to do just that, to make sure that there couldn't even be those kind of allegations. 

Steven: They ain't finding nothing. 'Cause there ain't nothing there, so why are they gonna find anything? All I can think is they're trying to railroad me again

In statement analysis, we always note the rhetorical question for potential information.  To whom is this addressed?  Would they not find anything because "I didn't kill Teresa", or is there another reason why they will not find anything.  When claiming to be railroaded again, it is a good time to assert that he did not do it.  

woman: "Dear Mr. Avery. I would like to invite you..." Here, I'll move this chair. [clears throat] man: There's a hole in the floor right here. Be careful. 

woman: OK. "...to a luncheon that the Wisconsin Innocence Project will be holding for exonerees from Wisconsin and surrounding states on November 19th of this year. The purpose of this luncheon will be to bring exonerees together to build a network and support group for each other." 

[laughs] I don't think he's gonna be able to make it. 

woman: We should take all those shoes in case we have any unsolved burglaries with foot impressions. man: Yeah, there we go. Can you move it over here a little bit? Perfect. 

Steven: I hadn't been home. They just been searching. You know, how hard is it to put evidence in the house? Or on the property? The sheriff... The old sheriff was out to get me the first time. How do I know he ain't got nothing to do with it this time, you know? I don't know. 

 We note, again, the rhetorical questions he asks without answers, and without a denial. 

Tonight the Averys feel like they've become the focus of this investigation and feel like police are calling them liars. 

This now tells us that the shadow of allegation is upon them. This is what should trigger, first and foremost, a reliable denial while the subject is speaking freely.  In fact, many times, innocent people will offer the denial before being asked; they know the allegation is upon them. 

female reporter: The entire Avery family is holed up in their Marinette County cabin right now, being told after three days they still cannot go home. Yet they say investigators won't tell them what's going on. Avery says he once again feels like a suspect and fears that any moment, police could arrest him. 

Avery:   "It all comes back. All these memories and everything else, and they're... just sketching me out again. And deep down, it hurts."


Each time the allegation is mentioned, it is opportunity for denial.  

Who originally found the vehicle was a member of our search party. It was a member of our search party. Who asked permission to go onto the site. But no one other than that has ever been on the Avery property. On the actual site. It's been crime scene and taped off. Secured. 

man: Significant evidence has been discovered over the past 24 hours at the Avery Salvage Yard. And the evidence that we've collected is leading us to that of a human person.

 You know, we're all victims. You know, and they just won't leave us alone. They just keep it up, keep it up. You know, it's... You know, a person only can take so much. You know? Right now, I got enough of 'em. You know? They can go somewhere else and... and just leave us alone. Let us do our life and live normal.

"You know" is a habit of speech that appears when the subject becomes aware of his audience.  What we do with this is:

We note what topics cause it to arise, and what topics do not.  
Here is another place to deny the allegation but no denial is issued. 
We also note that the word "normal" is used signaling something 'not normal' is on his mind. 

 Well, as I am sure everybody is aware, the scope of this investigation is now criminal in nature and we are classifying it as a homicide investigation. Um, it appears that an attempt was made to dispose of a body by an incendiary means. Pieces of human bone and teeth were found on the Avery property, and the key that was used to start Teresa Halbach's vehicle was found in Steven Avery's bedroom. And again I want to emphasize that the investigation revolves around one victim in this case and that's Teresa Halbach. And I also want to emphasize that the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department's role in this investigation was to provide resources for us when they were needed. As we needed items on the property to conduct searches, they provided that piece of equipment and that's their role and their only role in this investigation. 

I spoke with Steven Avery's attorney by phone this afternoon. Walt Kelly told me he'd been unable to speak to Avery, didn't know where he was and feared what might happen to him when he was questioned about Teresa Halbach's disappearance.

 Kelly on phone: I spent the entire afternoon, including direct conversation with Sheriff Pagel, trying to locate my client. My colleague Steve Glynn was in an automobile in the area trying to find him. I think they purposely have kept him away from us. I think they want to question him in our absence. 

female reporter: Where is Avery right now? Which jail? Do you know?

 I don't. I'm sorry. I don't know which jail. I... 

female reporter: You don't know where Steven Avery is? 

We know where he is, but we are not releasing that information because we do not have contact... 

female reporter: He's entitled to... [indistinct chatter] 

Here is where the confrontation with the allegation takes place and no reliable denial is issued:  

Wiegert: You know how this works. You can't beat the evidence.

 Fassbender: Work with us a little. 

Wiegert: Think of your family. 

I did not do it. 

How's your family gonna be when they think you're a cold-blooded person?

 I did not do it. 

Here we have the specific allegation avoided.  There is murder, burning the body, and perhaps sexual assault.  

If you made a mistake, they'll understand that. 

Yeah, but if there's a crooked cop... 

So you're telling me somebody planted the body? 

I didn't do it. 

Who did it? 

I don't know. 

Steve. 

I do not know. 

Steve, think of your family here for a second.

 I am thinking of my family! 

No, you're not. You're thinking of yourself. 

No. 

You're thinking of yourself. 

Fassbender: And we don't blame you for doing that. Goddamn it, you had 17 years in prison for something you didn't freaking do. 

I didn't do this one

And we understand that. You made a mistake. You made a mistake.

 No, I did not. I didn't do nothing. How could I make a mistake? 

So you intentionally killed her. That what you're telling me? 

No, I didn't. I didn't do nothing. 

How did it happen? Explain to me how it happened. 


 Wiegert: I know you're scared, Steve. I know you're scared. 

I'm not scared. 

Here one would be scared especially since he spent 18 years in prison for a rape he did not commit.  
Next, he parrots the words of the interviewer:  

Because you didn't mean to kill her. I don't think you meant to kill her. 

No, I did not kill her

This is parroting back another's words.  It took a while, but he finally parroted them back to the interview and this continues as the interview progresses.  It is something he did not say on his own, and only now he says it, repeatedly, after the interviewer introduced it to him.  

This wasn't a planned thing. 

No. 

Did you plan it? 

No. 

OK, I didn't think so. I didn't think you're that kind of a guy from meeting you. I think what happened, you come out of prison for serving time for something you didn't even do... 

I did not do it. ...


and it screws you up in the head. Like it screws everybody up. They didn't give you any counseling. You said before they gave no counseling. 

I did not kill her. 


The body's on your property. The key is in your bedroom. You know the key is there because you put the key there. That's the only way the key gets there. 

No. 

Yes, Steve. Yes. That's the fact. You can deny it all you want. The evidence will show that, OK? That's the way it is. But the cops got the evidence. 

Yeah. 

Two independent investigators that have never met you. Two people who have never met you. Have nothing against you. I know nothing about you. 

No, you see, if somebody else plants that sh1t there, you ain't gonna see it... 

Then why are your... Why is your DNA in there? Why is her blood in your house? How are they going to get that blood in your house? How is her blood in my house? 

It can't be. I used to leave my house open all the time

Note both that it can't be, but the house "used" to be open all the time. 


How does your DNA get inside of her truck? 

My DNA ain't. That's because they got blood out of me. How much blood do they get out of me? A lot of blood.

 Steve. 

They got a lot of blood outta me. That sheriff?

 Steve. Come back to reality here. 

I am. 

No, you're not.

 I did 18 years. You think I want to do any more? 

As special prosecutor, I have also been asked to comment upon any possibility of tainted evidence or of something along those lines. There was some mention, in the media, that this key in his bedroom could've been left or planted or something of the like. Now that Mr. Avery's DNA is found on that particular key, I was left to question whether or not people would have me believe that not only are they carrying around keys for Teresa's vehicle, but they're also carrying around vials of Mr. Avery's DNA with them, whether it's perspiration or whatever. It's absurd. Because DNA evidence from the suspect, Steven Avery, was found on the key and Mr. Avery's blood is found inside of Teresa Halbach's vehicle, it is no longer a question, at least in my mind as a special prosecutor in this case, who is responsible for the death of Teresa Halbach.

 female reporter: Hey, Steve! Everybody's listening! What do you want to say today? 

I'm innocent

female reporter: What else do you want to say, Steven? We can't tell it without you. 

Steven on phone: You know, last time, it took me 18 years and six weeks to prove my innocence. This time, I don't know how long. [theme music plays]

36 comments:

John mcgowan said...

Jodi: "It's just bullshit that they can go and search our house and nobody there.


Steven: "I hadn't been home. They just been searching. You know, how hard is it to put evidence in the house? Or on the property? The sheriff... The old sheriff was out to get me the first time. How do I know he ain't got nothing to do with it this time, you know? I don't know".

Why won't he take ownership?

John mcgowan said...

When he is not there it's his "home"

When LE are searching it's "the house" "the property"

John mcgowan said...

OT Update:

Bill Cosby Charged With Felony Sexual Assault

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/12/bill-cosby-felony-sexual-assault-arrest-warrant

John mcgowan said...

Who killed Teresa Halbach? The four alternative suspects

http://onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/makingamurdereralternativesuspects.html

Hey Jude said...

Peter - I admit to a knee-jerk reaction to the documentary - this is the trouble with documentaries, so many are similarly agenda-driven, I was outraged by the clips of Brendan's interviews, and I also thought (still think) Teresa's brother and ex had guilty knowledge; they seemed to know Teresa was dead, and were cagey when answering questions about how many times they had been onto the Avery site. I hope you will analyse their words at some point - the mother, Karen's words, also - she is wondering in the past tense before Teresa's body was found.

I have begun watching Brendan's interviews, so far am only some way through the first - that one, besides the glaring failure to ensure a parent or attorney was present, Seemed to me fairly conducted - he was encouraged to tell the truth, and was not cajoled or bullied - still, the failing was that no parent or attorney was present. I am already thinking differently about what Brendan's involvement might have been, where previously I thought he had been entirely set up - that doesn't change that later he was clearly manipulated and coerced, the process was unscrupulous, and that in adding to his confessions he did not tell the truth.

Thank you for addressing the part where Steven says the police left - rjb and I were puzzling as to whether that had significance, and if there was missing information there, in an earlier thread.

Now I'm thinking more toward what you suggested earlier - the likelihood that Steven did kill Teresa, but also that the police acted to strengthen their case by planting evidence, which made it appear he had been entirely framed. The cat incident is very disturbing, moreso once enlarged upon - I didn't give enough thought to that without knowing about the added details. Thinking about it, it was something they had to include, as it was bound to come up, and the choice was to go with Steven's minimisation rather than the facts. Mostly, I am just going to listen through this one.




Michele said...

The film makers picked the right type of social environment for this. People hate police and will not only believe everything bad said about them, but will convince themselves that he didn't kill Theresa based just on that.

John mcgowan said...

Anonymous to release documents to prove Steven Avery is framed by police in a murder case

http://www.techworm.net/2015/12/anonymous-release-documents-steven-avery-police-murder-case.html

Sus said...

Steven Avery was not a child when he set the cat on fire. He was serving his jail time for the incident when his first daughter was born.

I noticed other things which pointed to sexual perversion in his language.
1. He used the word "childhood"
2. He counted "And she had Jason", his wife-to-be's baby boy, as an unsolicited positive in reasons to marry her.
3. He said, "I want to be normal."
4. Describing daily life in prison, he included that he "took a shower."
5. While talking to Jodi, his fiancé, on the phone he pushed for her to get her son back as part of their marriage.

Later in the broadcast, I can't remember who said it, the DA or a policeman said the Avery family was full of sexual deviance. I think they said with each other and others, not sure. I think LE was aware of all sorts of things that maybe they couldn't introduce in court, and that's part of the reason they MAY have "helped" the case along.

I was concerned that when Brendan's older brother, Bobby, was home, he said he saw Teresa's jeep there. Then he added in that he took a shower and went hunting. The shower concerned me, also who takes a shower before hunting?

Also, in Brendan's police interviews he brought up Chuckie several times. He said they took the jeep past Chuckie's house and that "probably" Chuckie knew.

I am surprised police didn't question those two further.

Anonymous said...

To the shower comment before hunting: Yes, Bow hunters DO shower with special soap to remove as much human scent before leaving. So I see nothing weird in that comment or any connection to abuse.

Peter Hyatt said...

Michele said...
The film makers picked the right type of social environment for this. People hate police and will not only believe everything bad said about them, but will convince themselves that he didn't kill Theresa based just on that.
December 30, 2015 at 12:37 PM


Astute!

Peter

Sus said...

Thanks. I didn't know that. So that's why he showered. To mention showering in the free editing process may indicate sexual abuse or sexual homicide. In this case, of course he mentioned it at the murder was taking place. I would certainly be questioning him further.

Anonymous said...

steven sounds guilty but SO DOES his brother in law and older nephew, the two that supposedly went hunting/ and crossed paths at 3.

you got ~ 4 men on the property at the time Teresa was last seen, and all four men are telling very suspicious stories - NONE of them sound like they are being completely honest.

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous 2:01

point taken.

They got the right person, but there are so many crimes behind the scenes, not only here, but I speculate that sex crimes have existed within this family pre dating the wrongful rape conviction.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

PS:

Good points, John.

Jodi is one person of whom the documentary really downplayed.

The music sounds are well done if you wish to sound 'onerous' or dramatic. We should not minimize its impact.

The transcripts are helpful, but they are rough to edit.

It is interesting how they stitch together Steven Avery's statements in between testimony in court.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
To the shower comment before hunting: Yes, Bow hunters DO shower with special soap to remove as much human scent before leaving. So I see nothing weird in that comment or any connection to abuse.
December 30, 2015 at 1:53 PM

Unless he was asked if he showered, or if the shower is specifically part of a question, it is considered "unnecessary" information, making it very important and statistical linkage to sexual abuse is noted.

There were reasons why they felt Avery was the rapist. This is a family with lots of sexual abuse issues, and this is likely a linguistic connection.

That nothing is seen to connect this to the question or topic is actually what causes investigators and trained analysts to look into sexual abuse, assault, etc.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

To all:

What do you make of Jodi's handling by the documentary editors?

Begin with her introduction to a jail sentence.

Sus,

you raise appropriate concerns.

Peter

Sus said...

I'm not finished reading for the second time so I can't answer about Jodi.

But one propaganda technique I noticed was the IQ. Steven Avery's first court appointed attorney said, "I remember his IQ was 70." His IQ is actually mid 70s. I believe she misspoke as to relate the cutoff for MD.

The film displayed Brendan as also barely able to function. I do believe Brendan has a low average IQ, but he certainly was able to function. As a matter of fact, he displayed some manipulative behaviors while speaking to his mother.

Hey Jude said...

Sus - will you explain why the use of the word 'childhood' points to sexual perversion - in what context, or is that in any context? I don't know that one - 'child' I know might indicate abuse.

rjb said...

I'm curious about the use of the word "childhood" as well. I use it frequently, and I was sexually abused by my father. I'm going to see what I can find about it in other blog posts here, but if someone can briefly explain why it is so significant, I would appreciate the information.

John mcgowan said...

"child"

The word "child" and not "baby, son, kid, etc" (including name or nickname of toddler) is associated with risk. Child abuse, child molester, child pornography, child protective services, and so on, are words that are associated with children at risk. This can enter the language when someone perceives risk, or when someone is considering child abuse.

It may be that the child was abused.
It may be that the subject was abused in childhood. When a subject refers to himself as "child" in recollection, it is a strong signal of abuse, which, if so, is 80% likely linked to childhood sexual abuse.

We note the word "child" in all statements to explore for child abuse.

Read more:

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/ive-killed-our-child-dad-of-dead-toddler.html

Sus said...

I can't explain it. I don't know why I thought that. I may be wrong.

Now, definitely there is some context when Avery uses "childhood" that made me suspicious. He was attempting to persuade the listener what a happy childhood he had.

I'm not sure if he realized that he connected his "happy childhood" to a bed in a junk car down in the yard...just where Brendan first said Teresa was killed.

Sus said...

John,
Thank you for your info on child. What about "childhood"?

When I think about it, I don't say "my childhood" about myself. I say, "when I was a kid." I say "childhood" in professional reports or talking to parents or such.

Hey Jude said...

Thank you, John and Sus - I remember some of that, John, and will read the link later. Eighty percent, though - wow. :-/ I don't know how I would refer to myself in childhood, though I must have done so countless times. SA makes me a bit paranoid, or perhaps that's more than a bit.

Sus, that sounds well reasoned to me - I didn't make the connection to the bed.

rjb said...

I don't remember much about my childhood, but that is the word I use when talking about my formative years. Instead of "when I was a kid" or "when I was growing up" I say "during my childhood." Learning that choosing that word may be a red flag into my past is simultaneously interesting and unnerving.

Hey Jude said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hey Jude said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Not a Robot said...

About the home/house/property, does it make any difference that Avery didn't own the property on which he lived? It was family property and he lived in a trailer on it. I doubt he owned the trailer, either - he was probably renting it or living there free.

John mcgowan said...

OT Update

Family Of Missing Nelson Co. Woman Granted Visitation Of Grandchild

Why would he not allow them to visit their Grandson?

...........................................

NELSON COUNTY, Ky. (Kentucky Standard/WLEX) - The parents of a missing Nelson County woman have been granted visitation of their grandson.

The Kentucky Standard reports that Tommy and Sherry Ballard were granted visitation of their grandson, Eli. Eli is the son of Brooks Houck and Crystal Rogers.

According to the paper, Houck, who was Rogers’ live in boyfriend at the time of her disappearance, had not allowed the family to see the child. A judge ruled that this was not in the child's best interest. The Ballards were granted visitation every other Saturday from 10 a.m. until 2 p.m.

The Ballards will go to court next month to discuss changes in the visitation, including the possibility of allowing Eli to see his siblings and other relatives. Eli has four other siblings. The Dec. 10 decision also stipulated that none of the aforementioned parties or law enforcement question Eli about his mother, who police have said they presume dead.

Crystal Rogers has been missing since July of 2015. Police found her abandoned car with a flat tire that night near Exit 10 on the Bluegrass Parkway. Her keys, cell phone, and personal belongings were still inside the car.

Houck's brother, Nick, was fired from the Bardstown Police Department after he warned his brother that he was going to be interviewed in connection to the woman’s disappearance. An employee of Brooks Houck's was recently indicted on 38 counts of perjury. The Nelson County Sheriff’s Department says that Danny Singleton was indicted Wednesday by the Nelson County Grand Jury.

http://www.lex18.com/story/30859206/family-of-missing-nelson-co-woman-granted-visitation-of-grandchild

John mcgowan said...

Not a Robot said...

About the home/house/property, does it make any difference that Avery didn't own the property on which he lived? It was family property and he lived in a trailer on it. I doubt he owned the trailer, either - he was probably renting it or living there free.

Hi

I wouldn't imagine so. I'm living in a rented apartment (Flat, in the UK) i still call "my" apartment. There will be an element of distancing language "The" if he knew they would find remains and other incriminating items on "the" property. If it is the case that is how he views the land and property and it is owned by family, why wouldn't he say "Their" land/property/home etc. That is unless they (family) knew about the what was there, and it is possible that the distancing language was all inclusive?

John mcgowan said...

Jodi: "It's just bullshit that they can go and search our house and nobody there.

Jodi takes ownership, albeit "our," sharing responsibility.

turner said...

Guilty. I'm guilty of being affected by the view of the film, the police corruption, the disdaine I have of the prosecutor and lastly the sorrow I feel for Avery's parents. I took note of Peter's admonishments to not let those things persuade but I'm human. And it shows how important all the pre-trial hearings are to rule out evidence, prior convictions, etc because it will bias the jury.
Had I went by statements alone, I would've seen exactly what I saw with the Ramsey's, mccanns, etc.

I want to believe statement analysis BUT, sorry there's just no way around this, Peter says "it's a signal, explore further, it's sensitive" never that it's the end-all, 100% proof, etc. so he agrees that it's a step in the direction of guilt and you shouldn't rely solely on it -- isn't this also saying that sometimes it fails or isn't the case?
That's hard to put into words.

Also, a courtroom and trial is often interpreted like this film. So many things come in to play. It seems like-ability, believability determines outcomes more than anything else.

David McCann said...

"Why is her blood in your house?"

Why were they claiming blood was in the house when it wasn't?

Anonymous said...

At the beginning of the article there is mention of 'Reliable Denial'. I was wondering if there was any literature on this concept other than what is in this blog or any other blog under 'Statement Analysis ®'?
Also, I think the main purpose of the documentary was not to get viewers to make a decision about whether the two main subjects were guilty or not (we were not part of the jury). I think that the purpose was to deconstruct the justice system within that area and suggest that there are areas for improvement with regards to the balance of power between the institution and the individual.

Hey Jude said...

David - In the US detectives are allowed to lie about what evidence they have or what another suspect has said in order to gain an admission or confession. Google it for info - the Supreme Court has upheld the right to use those means.

Anonymous said...

Just read that Kathleen Zellner will represent Avery . She has said "Whoever deleted Teresa Halbach's cellphone calls is either the murderer or part of the coverup . "
Zellner has exonerated 17 wrongfully convicted men , including Ryan Ferguson .
If Zellner believes Avery is innocent , I think that's pretty powerful . She is a very well respected attorney .

Anonymous said...

Brendan Creato:

http://www.nj.com/camden/index.ssf/2016/01/father_of_boy_found_dead_last_year_taken_into_cust.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured