Sunday, December 27, 2015

Sgt. Andrew Coburn: Making A Murderer

Did Andrew Coburn practice deception under oath?
Upcoming.... 

more analysis on "Making a Murderer", including the DA Ken Kratz  references to water, including his use of 'sweaty' (repeated)  and its association with sexual abuse/assaults, etc, and why he would choose such a description in court.  

Deception on this program was almost incessant and is from law enforcement, the DA, the defense, the accused, family members, etc. It is difficult to find a single person who was consistently reliable in language. 

 One defense attorney, however, was noted for his veracity, Dean Strang,  that is, until it came time to affirm after the guilty verdict, that a  killer was still on the loose.  Here, he could not make a direct statement to buttress his partner's assertion that "absolutely" a killer was on the loose.  It is a powerful moment for body language analysts as he was silent, looked down, and closed his eyes.  Strang had spoken consistently with reliable language but here he was silent at a moment where it was expected he would respond to the journalist.  

Andrew Coburn's statements to be analyzed as will the words of Tom Fassbender, an independent investigator who's words warrant analysis.  These two provided statements rich for analysis. 

The interviews are poorly conducted and contaminated the language of the teen.  No legally sound, analytical interview was shown on the program. 

Before specific analysis posted, please keep in mind, this is Statement Analysis, and the analysis will be limited to Coburn's own words and not whether or not something 'seems' suspicious. This will give indiction if he was truthful or deceptive, based upon his own words, under oath, regarding Steven Avery. 


We want to know that as a law enforcement official under oath, do the words of Andrew Coburn show that they come from experiential memory, or is there a disruption of the speed of transmission with linguistic indictors of deception?

First, before looking at his words, what did you note regarding Coburn's testimony?  

What do you think when he spoke?   

Was he truthful, or was he deceptive in his testimony?






Was Andrew Coburn Deceptive under oath?


pollcode.com free polls

41 comments:

Jo said...

Can't wait for your analysis. This happen near were I live and I followed the case at that time in the news.

rjb said...

Peter, I am so excited that you are covering this show/case. I have two more episodes to go, and am trying to view things through the lens of statement analysis as I watch. I think I have picked up a few things, and can't wait to hear what more experienced people have to say about it.

Anonymous said...

you've got near everybody lying through their teeth on this. (i've seen 3 episodes so far)


Avery is innocent of the rape he was locked up for but almost certainly he did try to run his cousin off the road before then. And she was right to say he was acting in a predatory manner though her details of what he had done may have been distorted.

(really goes to show - even when you got a bad apple and you know it - you can't assume they are the only bad apple in town - and you can't be sure they did any specific crime no matter their connection to the victim - unless the evidence is conclusive -- ahem, recent posts)

back to this case -- wow I was so moved with grief when I saw how cops interviewed that teen, he was gutted of his chances to comprehend the consequences of participating - like a lamb to slaughter.

Avery Sounded like he knew exactly what happened to Teresa. The teen oddly owned association with the crime. Though he owned near zero of the specifics.

I do not for a minute think the story of the rake and slaughter on the bed occurred.

However the body does seem to have been burned in a bon fire and they both own presence at the bon fire.


What I felt I could not conclude was the degree to which either party was involved. ( Avery & teen) Was one the actual killer and the other helped dispose? Did one discover the other in the act? Is Avery actually attempting to help the teen? It occurs to me that if Avery forced or intimidated the teen into helping him that the teen could tell that story and be set free. So it seems to me that there is a possibility that Avery disposed of the body for the teen. But I do not know at all. I can't tell at all. Avery speaks with clear knowledge of the crime. So the teen was either not involved at all and that whole involvement of him was pure manipulation on his part, or the teen was involved but was a willing participant. Maybe. ... I ve only seen two episodes. and docs have the power to sway anyway.

sewimperfect said...

Peter, I hope you & your family had a Merry Christmas! The work you do on this blog teaching us laypeople is important. You have positively affected my life! One big change is my Adhd teenager used to find it faster to lie abt whether he'd gotten chores, schoolwork, etc done. He now 90% of the time tells the truth, BC he knows I'll catch him out! We even use it to tease each other, like "Ooooo sensitivity there!", or my son will respond to a query with an exaggerated never, or use 100%. "Mom, I would NEVER have eaten some of my sisters candy!" or one he uses often "Mom, I 100% cleaned the kitty potty!" ;-) My 13 yr old daughter has used it at school & youth group to figure out when someone is sensitive or clearly lying. She doesn't call them on it, but she feels good having that info. She was upset BC a kid from church's father spoke to the group about how he had saved someone from a fire. She said every verb about going into the burning house was dropped, but not the before or after verbs. She's even better than I am at spotting sensitivity than I am, despite the fact I read here daily & she gets the info secondhand. She's great at what you call "on the fly." We joke she has a truth telling superpower. She was already pretty good, I believe she reads people's nonverbal cues/body language as well. My long winded point is that she is a very sensitive soul, and what she's learned has made Middle School more manageable for her. (Overall, its good, tho someone stole her iPhone & she was sure it happened next to a classmate, And he had major sensitivity indicators but she had no proof.) I asked if she tried to explain to the principal who was questioning suspects and she said "Mom, if I tried to explain that she'd look at me like I was a crazy person!" She's probably right ;-) In that case i think she would rather have not known. I've stopped talking about it at dinner parties/events when a subject you've covered here is brought up, I get the same looks. ;-) My family lets me go on and on tho. They're what you call a captive audience hehheh. Ok, hubby is asking me to go upstairs. So in conclusion, a family way over in California has been positively affected by you & your work. I hope the new year brings you & yours many blessings!

sewimperfect said...

Ok I was wrong, my daughter said it was a youth leader. I don't know if that makes it better or worse! My fingers hurt from typing all that on my phone! :-D

P.s. Not a robot!

Sus said...

I wish I could do this. It sounds like great practice, but I don't have Netflix. I did see Episode 1 on YouTube.

Even the DOJ investigator distanced herself while on the stand! She was doing anything and everything to not take responsibility for her own report.

Sus said...

I found the transcripts.

http://transcripts.foreverdreaming.org/viewforum.php?f=524

Anonymous said...

OT;
Somewhere between 1000-2000 teens mobbed a mallin Ky and shut it down after Christmas. This on the heels of BLM protest at malls in Minn prior to Christmas then the airport(s).

This is our future now.

Turner said...

I'm confused!
I've watched 2 episodes only and yes everyone on the prosecutors side lied, covering up or playing dumb. But so far Avery hasn't said or done anything suspect. He gave strong denials for the rape, spent 18 yrs in prison because he refused to admit to it which could have let him out and now it appears the cops involved in this have planted evidence on him for a missing person. They were in BIG trouble and now a girl goes missing 3 days after their corruption was exposed.
Is this correct? I see two attorneys that came to Avery's rescue and so far have nothing to lie about. So what am I missing??

Sus said...

I have read episodes 1 and 2 transcripts. Here are a few things I noted..
1. Avery shows signs in his language of being sexually abused and of being a sexual abuser himself...possibly toward children.
A. He used the word "childhood."
B. He "lit up" a cat. Contrary to what Avery is saying and it was a mistake in his youth, he was married and served the jail time for it when his daughter was born.
C. He counted "And she had Jason." his wife to be's baby boy as an unsolicited positive in reasons to marry her.
D. He said, "I want to be normal."
E. Describing prison time, he included taking a shower.

2. I'm surprised that others and Avery, himself, describe him as one who admits guilt and takes responsibility for his actions. Far from it - he blames his friends, his cousin, LE, that he's a poor Avery. And his mother plays right into it. Oh, and add that first public defender.

Turner said...

What? He didn't do the first crime AND he spent 18 years in prison. He said as soon as he left prison the anger was gone and he was a happy man looking forward to his life. He appeared to be doing just that. I would expect some bitterness and anger to be in him, in anyone. He didn't claim to be a perfect person before he went in and they expressed his extremely low IQ, that's something to consider in his language I would think.

Anonymous said...

I noticed the woman Avery married who already had a young child was rather mousy -- and just being real here - Avery was pretty attractive as a young guy, more attractive than his wife. I thought it was interesting when he said about his wife - she was pretty "at least I thought she was" or something like that. he kid of catches and qualifies/sells himself when saying he fell for her for her looks. it was a matching that reminded me of men looking for dominance, some men like some they are much more charismatic than, it makes it easier to abuse them and less likely the will run out. perhaps also the fact that she had a young kid already was more than just - "well I guess we'll try this".

something was very dark between him and his second woman too, she apparently drank more heavily when they were together, this suggests that there are stressors in the relationship being more than she knows how to cope with.

I see these hints as suggestions he was a much worse man on a daily basis in his domestic relations than the doc is allowing us to get an idea for,

Anonymous said...

Bobby

rjb said...

I read somewhere (I'll try to find the source again) that the 18 year sentence broke down as 6 years for the incident with his cousin (running her off the road, brandishing a gun at her) and then he served 12 years of the rape sentence before being exonerated. The documentary made no mention of this, but if it's true, I think it matters & it was deliberately left out of the documentary in order to suit the sympathetic attitude towards Steven Avery that the documentarians are clearly trying to create.

rjb said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rjb said...

http://badgerdiggings.com/js-archive/unjust-jail-term-didnt-make-a-monster/

Avery was sentenced to 6 years for the crimes against his cousin, and although he served that term concurrently with the sentence for rape, he would have spent 6 years in prison regardless of the false rape conviction.

Anonymous said...

@ rjb - I think there was also a sentence for lighting the cat on fire. He had already served that sentence when he was convicted of the new charges.

Anonymous said...

The piece of the documentary that I question is when Officer Coburn called in the plates prior to the vehicle being found. My thought was that he was reviewing information on the missing person and may have been confirming he had the right information. I feel it was taken out of context and was probably explained when he was on the stand but the documentary only presented anything that could be questionable.

Hey Jude said...

Is this unexpected? Teresa's brother, Mike, speaking before her body was found:

'Um... I mean... the grieving process, you know, could last days, could last weeks, could last years. You know, hopefully, we find answers as soon as possible so we can, you know, begin to... hopefully, you know, move on, hopefully with Teresa still in our life.'

rjb said...

Hey Jude, I was rewatching the first two episodes this morning and that stuck out to me as well.

Anonymous said...

Yeah Teresa 's brother stood out. a lot.

however -- via editing you are not really sure what he had learned when he made that comment. still it does stand out.

Hey Jude said...

Rjb - more Mike, and Ryan.

I added names for clarity to this excerpt from a transcript (the site with all transcripts below, thanks Sus) - it's from Episode Two:

http://transcripts.foreverdreaming.org/viewtopic.php?f=524&t=24353&sid=f7b96d47a0f5a9b21e282dc37fd19826

( I noticed Mike Halbach becomes anxious when he and Ryan are asked by a reporter if they had been on the Avery site)
-----


Karen Halbach (Teresa's mother): This is very hard to take. We love her a lot. We miss her very much. It's just very odd that we... we didn't hear from her for the last two days when she didn't return calls, you know? We're hoping for the best. If she's out there, we want her home. You know, we want to know what happened to her.

Mike Halbach (Teresa's brother) : From what we understand, she made all three stops. And after the third stop is where, um, she stopped answering the phone or she stopped making calls. She hadn't listened to any voicemail messages after that. She didn't make any credit card transactions. So... we don't know what happened after that.

female reporter: How are you holding up?

Um... I mean... the grieving process, you know, could last days, could last weeks, could last years. You know, hopefully, we find answers as soon as possible so we can, you know, begin to... hopefully, you know, move on, hopefully with Teresa still in our life.

----
Addressing Search party - Teresa missing five days

Ryan Hillegas (Teresa's ex-boyfriend): All the small towns, even St. Nazianz, Marytown, Chilton, New Holstein, Kiel... So basically we're looking at any public place, bars, restaurants, gas stations, grocery stores, post offices, banks... any place you can think of that's gonna allow you to put the posters up.

Scott (Teresa's roommate) : And if anybody knows, like, Manitowoc-Two Rivers kind of area, I mean, if you know it... that would be best to send you guys there.

Ryan: Like... If you do find anything, say you find the truck, say you talk to somebody that has seen her or made contact or knows her whereabouts or anything, don't touch anything. Make... It's very important, I guess. Um, don't touch anything. Get a hold of either the detective or dispatch in Chilton and just, you know, tell them you're really concerned and you found this and they can take care of getting a hold of who we need to.

Mike Halbach: I don't know what to hope. I don't know if you want to find a vehicle and, you know, she's there. I don't know if you want to find nothing and hope that she's somewhere still, um... alive.

You know, we don't know what to... I don't know what to hope.

---

candlelit vigil;

Mike Halbach : A hundred percent of my hopes are with finding Teresa. When we last heard, she was alive on Monday afternoon. And until we hear otherwise, that's what we're gonna believe, that's what we're gonna pray.

Karen Halbach: I'm just praying that God is next to her. Please bring her home. That's all we want. Just bring her home. [sobbing] Please, somebody find her.

---


male reporter: Did they find anything while you were out searching?

Ryan: I'm not really gonna comment on that, but if anything was found, you know, we had proper authority and had professionals take a look at it as needed.

reporter 2: How many times were you on the site? You were there Saturday when they found the car, but how many other times were you on the site?

Ryan: I... I wasn't... I wasn't on the site.

You were never on the site.

That's not true at all.

male reporter 2: Did you get there, Mike? Were you a part of the... on the site searching?

Mike: We... No, the people... I mean, the original... 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.

Ryan: On the actual site. It's been crime scene and taped off. Secured.

rjb said...

Hey Jude,

The pronoun stuttering on the part of both the boyfriend and the brother caught my attention when I watched that part of the show. Also the "a hundred percent" comment. I would love to hear Peter's analysis of what those two had to say.

rjb said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Hey Jude - great post.

The brother sounds like he knows Teresa is dead while his mother does not.

imo this could be for two different reasons:

Mike murdered Teresa.

OR

Mike has inside info from police, i.e. Teresa was found dead and/but he's been asked to stay quit about it so that they can have others "discover" the evidence, because of all the former lawsuit stuff it's going to be hard to arrest Avery without public support. Otherwise the guy who is certainly the killer will go free.


I think the ladder is actually very probable. IMO He knew she was dead, but nothing specific in his language suggests he killed her.

Hey Jude said...

Me, too - rijb.

I don't know what to think yet, besides I would like to know to what extent Teresa's boyfriend, ex, and brother, might have been investigated - if they were investigated at all, or sufficiently, just as standard. I wonder if it was only ever Avery who was gone after, and Brendan was manipulated into his false confession in by way of support because there was no credible evidence against Steven Avery (none that was discernible to me, then).

Did Steven say 'she left' of Teresa, when she had completed her assignment, or that he left? I wish I could rerun the episodes easily, or that they were on YouTube, and that the transcripts were better done - the dialogue seems pretty accurate, but it's so difficult to work out who is speaking.

Hey Jude said...

Anon at 6.06 - I'm conscious of Peter's cautionings round guilty knowledge - I think the brother and the ex have shared guilty knowledge, but I don't know in relation to what. The brother says things which put me in mind of Davey Blackburn and his only envisaging himself taking a few days off to grieve, and not knowing what to do, or how to grieve. Similarly, Mike thinks grieving might take a few days, but seems to catch himself and so extends it; he doesn't know 'what to hope' - well, he should be hoping his sister will be found alive, I'd say. Possibly no love lost between them, as in her video, Teresa states her love for her sisters, and her family, but no specific mention of her brother. Intereating, but if they didn't care for each other, that maybe could account for why he isn't bawling his eyes out and didn't see himself grieving - well, in the case of her death, which he wasn't meant to be aware of, when he said that.

There are SO many unpleasant, unethical slimes in this case it's like wading through a sewer - I don't think I can stay with it for long. People are not meant to be betrayed by the good guys - Brendan was just collateral damage, IMO - I don't believe he had anything to with Teresa's murder, and will take a lot more convincing that Steven murdered Teresa - if he did, then it was not in the manner alleged, the whole story - tied to the bed, throat slashed, and shot in the garage scenario is ridiculous as there was no DNA or evidence of a clean up to support it. How can they possibly claim Teresa was raped? There is no evidence - no-one can seriously believe Brendan's 'confession' by suggestion/guesswork and coercion.

rjb said...

Hey Jude @ 6:11

When Avery was interviewed by a TV reporter three (I think? No date was given, but it was before the search warrant was executed) days after Theresa went missing, he said the following:

******* (Episode 3, starting at 32:33)
Reporter: 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: (significant pause) 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?

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.
*******

Things that stand out to me in what he said:

-- "Because most of the time she...." He doesn't say "when she comes, she" he specifies "most of the time," suggesting that on at least one of her visits, something different occurred.

-- "... and that's about it." This indicates that that is NOT it, IIRC from other things I have read here.

-- "That was about it" again, this time regarding the questions police asked him. He then reveals that that was NOT it, as police then asked if they could search his home. A fairly important, one would think unusual, event, and yet he didn't mention it until pressed further by the reporter.

-- "...they asked me if I remembered anything and I told them no." This isn't a denial of knowledge, it's reporting what he said to police.

-- "You know, everything was fine and then they left." IIRC, Peter has explained that "You know" has significance; I don't remember precisely what it signifies, but I know it has been discussed. "Everything was fine" seems significant to me as well. Was he not expecting everything to be fine?

I would love to hear Peter's analysis of this short interview with the reporter.

Later in the series, we are told, I believe via one of Avery's defense attorneys, that Avery went into his trailer and did not see Theresa again after she first arrived at the property. If her usual practice was to "collect the money" once she was done photographing the vehicle, as stated in Avery's interview with the reporter, then his nephew's account of seeing her walk to his uncle's trailer after taking the pictures makes perfect sense.

I don't recall Avery ever mentioning Theresa leaving, but I am rewatching the show with (what I hope is) a more analytical focus, and will make it a point to listen for this.

rjb said...

Hey Jude @ 6:38,

I also think that the brother likely had knowledge of Theresa's death during the interviews shown and before the news was released to the public. I would be interested to know when the interview at what appears to be the Avery property took place. I don't think he was involved in her death, but I can see police notifying him before making the news public, particularly if they were involved in "helping" prove Avery's guilt by planting evidence.

During his testimony, Brendan said that he got the ideas for the gruesome details that he gave to detectives from a book called "Kiss the Girls." If this is the James Patterson book by that name, then I find this bit of testimony credible. The book is about a man who kidnaps women, holds them captive in a dungeon, shackled, and rapes them. The book is at a fourth grade reading level, which we are told is Brendan's reading level, so he certainly could have read this book.

As Peter said in another blog post, the detectives interviewing Brendan tainted the confession processes so badly that no one will ever know what actually happened to Theresa. However, after listening to some of Brendan's telephone conversations with his mother, I believe that he was involved in whatever it is that happened to Theresa Halbach.

Hey Jude said...

Rjb - thank you for your responses and interesting observations. . I am glad to know that Brendan's ideas could really have come from the book he mentioned - I had wondered if he would be able to read what sounded like a quite adult book, but if it's a remedial type book for older slow learners, then I believe him. It does throw up the question, did it really happen then, was he trying to copy what he had read? - but there was no DNA evidence to support that Teresa had even been inside the house.

I was wondering if it might mean there was missing information where he says 'you know, everything was fine and then they left' (the police). 'You know' can be a need to persuade - or it might just be something repeated out of habit, as I recall. That might be difficult to know from just a small sample - as there is so much, I see I have not listened very well - I don't know if he says it a lot. 'Left' can be sensitive if it's a connecting verb, but I don't think it applies here, at least not if they just left without his saying where they went/what happened next.

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/understanding-word-left-in-analysis.html

I was rather convinced by Brendan's mom telling him he needed to tell the truth, and then by his written account of his day. My thought was, he is doing what his mom told him to do, telling the truth - but again it was not want they wanted to hear. I was outraged by the guy who then made him make the drawings to back up the lies he had been cajoled into making and was effectively retracting through his written account. Brendan did not know if he were coming or going - he was trying to please the authority figures in his life, who were making conflicting demands of him. I don't know how a boy of such limited intelligence could manage being told that his truth was lies, and that the lies he was encouraged to make were truth. So - maybe my outrage is such that I am not willing to believe that Brendan had any involvement, or even that he might have left things out of his written account - even if he did, I couldn't believe it was any of what was in the drawings, as there was no evidence that any of that happened - and as he said, he read those things in a book.

I think Brendan's mother might have been very easily convinced of Steve's guilt by the police, and particularly by the bones in the bonfire under Steven's window. It seems only a remote likelihood that he would have moved the bones to where they could be so easily discovered outside his house from the more distant gravel pit, or that he would have burned the body in the open, when there was an incinerator on the property; it also seems unlikely he would just cover the victim's car with branches, and leave it for days, when there was an industrial car crusher on site. It doesn't add up.

It's fascinating - but I'm lazy. I need to listen, read and watch more - figure out what I'm missing but which Peter is seeing to cause him to be able to say what he is saying about Steven being so dangerous, and how he can know there really was a rape. I watched it all once, but I was playing my farm through a fair bit of it. I might even have missed an episode - I don't recall the bit about the licence plates being called in. It's a lot to go through again. :)

rjb said...

Hey Jude,

Hearing a James Patterson book described as "a remedial type book for older slow learners" made my night!

Sadly he's a New York Times bestselling author many times over.

Hey Jude said...

Lol - oh dear. :-D

Gets me coat. :)

rjb said...

The conversation with the reporter is in episode 2, not 3, but does begin at 32:33. I'm sorry if this created confusion for anyone.

Hey Jude, regarding your comment @ 8:24,

I'm enjoying this conversation as well! I agree, if events unfolded as Brendan claimed, then it is invincible that investigators would have been unable to find any biological evidence that Theresa was there. Especially if her hair was cut off during the assault. Avery was clearly not the tidiest of housekeepers, and hairs get everywhere. The bedroom would have to have been meticulously cleaned, items removed and destroyed, in order to ensure that no hair, blood, or vaginal secretions remained. The kill site was certainly not the bedroom, and on a property of that size, they could have taken her to any number of places prior to killing her, supporting the theory of an initial burn site away from the fire pit while still allowing for Steven and Brendan's involvement.

Thank you for the clarification on what "you know" can mean, and the word "left." I am trying to pay attention to whether Avery uses "you know" regularly or if it is not a part of his normal speech pattern.

Brendan was certainly led, confused, and coerced by his interviews with both his attorney's investigator and the detectives. My husband is a police officer, and although he hasn't seen the show, I did describe Brendan's interview with the detectives to him and he was appalled. He said that an interview like that should have been thrown out by the judge.

However, from Brendan's telephone conversations with his mother, I believe that he was involved in the crime. I can't say at this point to what degree I think he was involved, but I hope to have a better idea by the time I finish rewatching all the episodes. I find it hard to believe that someone of his intelligence could maintain a lie long-term, and the truth, at least some truth, leaks out when he is speaking with his mother. Also, IIRC in his testimony at trial, Brendan is unable to give detailed information about what DIDN'T happen when questioned on that point. He is asked if his statements to LE were true, and he says something to the effect of, "Not the parts that didn't happen," without categorically denying all involvement.

Brendan's mother was convinced of Steven's guilt initially, but when she chose to believe her son innocent, she immediately changed her opinion about her brother's innocence as well. For me, the most telling fact here is that, even after being told that the detectives "got in [his] head," once Brendan is arrested and put in jail, his mother clearly has no doubt that he was involved in Theresa's death and her rage and vitriol against Steven show that it was not difficult for her to accept that he dragged her son into committing a heinous act.

Why didn't Steven crush the car? Laziness. Hubris. Maybe he felt that due to the civil suit, the sheriff's department would tread carefully around any potential investigation that he might be a suspect in. Maybe he was going to do it later and the investigators showed up earlier than he expected.

I find it interesting that, with so many family members living on the same property, only Steven and Brendan were present at the bonfire. If they knew or felt reasonably certain that no one would be coming to check out the fire, then burning the body out in the open was a low-risk disposal method. Probably lower risk than moving the body would have been.

rjb said...

The conversation with the reporter is in episode 2, not 3, but does begin at 32:33. I'm sorry if this created confusion for anyone.

Hey Jude, regarding your comment @ 8:24,

I'm enjoying this conversation as well! I agree, if events unfolded as Brendan claimed, then it is invincible that investigators would have been unable to find any biological evidence that Theresa was there. Especially if her hair was cut off during the assault. Avery was clearly not the tidiest of housekeepers, and hairs get everywhere. The bedroom would have to have been meticulously cleaned, items removed and destroyed, in order to ensure that no hair, blood, or vaginal secretions remained. The kill site was certainly not the bedroom, and on a property of that size, they could have taken her to any number of places prior to killing her, supporting the theory of an initial burn site away from the fire pit while still allowing for Steven and Brendan's involvement.

Thank you for the clarification on what "you know" can mean, and the word "left." I am trying to pay attention to whether Avery uses "you know" regularly or if it is not a part of his normal speech pattern.

Brendan was certainly led, confused, and coerced by his interviews with both his attorney's investigator and the detectives. My husband is a police officer, and although he hasn't seen the show, I did describe Brendan's interview with the detectives to him and he was appalled. He said that an interview like that should have been thrown out by the judge.

However, from Brendan's telephone conversations with his mother, I believe that he was involved in the crime. I can't say at this point to what degree I think he was involved, but I hope to have a better idea by the time I finish rewatching all the episodes. I find it hard to believe that someone of his intelligence could maintain a lie long-term, and the truth, at least some truth, leaks out when he is speaking with his mother. Also, IIRC in his testimony at trial, Brendan is unable to give detailed information about what DIDN'T happen when questioned on that point. He is asked if his statements to LE were true, and he says something to the effect of, "Not the parts that didn't happen," without categorically denying all involvement.

Brendan's mother was convinced of Steven's guilt initially, but when she chose to believe her son innocent, she immediately changed her opinion about her brother's innocence as well. For me, the most telling fact here is that, even after being told that the detectives "got in [his] head," once Brendan is arrested and put in jail, his mother clearly has no doubt that he was involved in Theresa's death and her rage and vitriol against Steven show that it was not difficult for her to accept that he dragged her son into committing a heinous act.

Why didn't Steven crush the car? Laziness. Hubris. Maybe he felt that due to the civil suit, the sheriff's department would tread carefully around any potential investigation that he might be a suspect in. Maybe he was going to do it later and the investigators showed up earlier than he expected.

I find it interesting that, with so many family members living on the same property, only Steven and Brendan were present at the bonfire. If they knew or felt reasonably certain that no one would be coming to check out the fire, then burning the body out in the open was a low-risk disposal method. Probably lower risk than moving the body would have been.

Hey Jude said...

Rjb - You have given a lot to think about - When I go through it again I'll try to suspend my outrage and listen more to Brendan and his mom. I think because all the family seems limited in regards intelligence, I am possibly putting too much down to the ease with which they appear to have been manipulated - Brendan in particular. Yet there are some indications that they are brighter than they appear - Ma making her multiple photocopies of documents to send out to the media, Steven studying law in the library, Brendan reading a NY Times best seller list novel, if really he did. I looked it up and saw there is a movie based on the novel, but unless he'd been told to say he read it, or just wanted to give the impression to the court he was capable of reading it (it must have been hard to keep hearing how slow and unintelligent everyone said he was), I'd think he did read it rather than that he'd seen the movie.

As there is local prejudice against the family, it's likely the kids were targets for bulies, in which case they may be not only naturally slow at school, but would also be more prone to underperform there and not engage that much - they may routinely be marked down and considered even less intelligent than might actually be the case, especially if they are quiet, which Is how Brendan is described -well, teachers can be prejudiced, too. I think 'Still waters run deep' is never going to be applicable, but Brendan may not be quite so unthinking as he appears, though that wouldn't make the methods used to gain a confession any more acceptable or less outrageous. I'm going to listen to his police interviews in YouTube and think some more about Brendan. Even if he did do anything, I'm still likely to think that he was a vulnerable boy who was easily manipulated - I'd like to know how he acquired the book, and who might have encouraged him to read it, if anyone did.

The car - I can't imagine Steven would draw attention to it by covering it, though - the adjacent cars weren't covered or overgrown. Or even why he would leave it on their land rather than move it a mile or two down the road. I think the brother and boyfriend had been up there on more occasions than they claimed - at least they are visibly anxious and cagey on the subject, and the brother is almost ready to leap down the ex's throat in case he says the wrong thing - at least that's how I saw it.

MzOpinion8d said...

Were they really the only two at the bonfire? I thought there were others there around that time for some reason. That definitely makes it stranger!

rjb said...

Nothing in the show ever indicates that there was anyone other than Steven and Brendan at the bonfire. If there had been, I'm sure the defense would have called them as witnesses to testify that there were no human remains in the fire. One witness testified that he saw flames behind the garage, but as far as I can recall no one else was ever present at the fireside.

rjb said...

Episode 5, 36:45. Steven Avery says, "I saw her leave."

However.

In his video recorded interview with detectives Wiegert and Fassbender on November 9, Avery says the following:

*******(Episode 5, beginning @ 18:40)

Wiegert: So Theresa takes a picture, you come outside. She and you are both outside and you give her the money. She goes and gets in her truck and then gives you an Auto Trader magazine, is that right?

Avery: Yeah

Wiegert: OK. Is she in or out of the truck when she gives you the magazine?

Avery: She's in the truck.

Wiegert: In the truck. OK, then what happens next.

Avery: Then she gave me the book, shut the door, I walked toward the house, I put the book on the computer. I came back out. And then I was gonna walk over by Bobby but then his vehicle was gone.

Wiegert: So you walk in the house, put the magazine down, you come out and Bobby's vehicle's gone?

Avery: Bobby's vehicle's gone.
*******

At no point here does he state that he saw Theresa leave. A glaring omission in light of the charges against him. At best it is mildly implied that she left at some point between his placing the magazine in the house and coming back outside. But, of course, if he did not say it, then we cannot say it for him.

Isn't "and then" an indicator that more than is being told occurred between two events, as used by Avery above? "I came back out..." unstated events transpire "...and then I was gonna walk over by Bobby."

In the past two and a half episodes that I have watched since the interview with the reporter in episode 2, I have not noticed Avery using "you know" at all when he speaks. It was unusual in his conversation with the reporter.

Anonymous said...

I just wanted to comment on using "you know"Some people in Wisconsin have a very thick almost "uper" accent. Its actually very common for people to say you know or ya know before or after a statement, so I wouldn't read too much into that. I have a neighbor who says it constantly. If your not from this area it may seem strange but again its just part of the Wisconsin dialect

Anonymous said...

I agree with the last post. Being from northern WI, it sounded normal to me. We say it ALL the time.

Anonymous said...

BBC report from Germany. Thousand assaults against women in Cologne over Christmas & New Years holiday. Rape. Molestation. Groping. Organised over social media. Middle Eastern & North African men.