Sunday, December 27, 2015

Steve Avery's Statement At Sentencing Analyzed


If you were innocent of killing someone and were told you could freely speak, particularly after declining to take the stand in your own defense, what would you say?

"I didn't kill Teresa" is a reliable denial. In all the clips that the documentary showed, he did not once issue this.  


We have noted that it has three elements.  


1.  The pronoun "I"

2.  The past tense verb
3.  The specific allegation answered. 

If any one of these three elements is missing, it is no longer reliable.  

If any one of these three elements is changed, it is not reliable. 
If a fourth, or fifth element is added, it is not reliable.  
If the statement does not come from the Free Editing Process, that is, where one is freely choosing his own words, it is not reliable. 
If it is parroted from a question, it is not reliable.  
If it is a 'corrected statement' that is, one in which the subject was told that he did not issue a reliable denial and now 'corrects' his statement, it is not reliable. 

Being unreliable means just that:  it is not reliable.   Some innocent people do not grasp that they are under accusation and do not issue a denial at all, which means the interviewer must find a scenario where the subject recognizes that he is under question.  In employee theft, this is common and the subject of the interview must be brought to a place where he realizes the need to deny the theft. 


Where the subject knows precisely the allegation, the reliable denial should come early and easily.  


If there is any obstruction, change or hinderance to making this statement, it is not reliable. 


If the subject reverse the order of wording, to, in effect, avoid making the plain and simple denial, it is unreliable. 


Some examples of unreliable include:


"I did not steal the goddamed jewelry" where "jewelry" is now cursed.

"I never stole the jewelry" using "never"


This case may prove emotionally difficult for analysis due to the incessant flow of deception from character after character, including the police, the defendants, the attorneys and the prosecutor.  The interview of the 16 year old was a contaminating legally unsound feeding of information, losing the opportunity to learn how Teresa Halbach actually died.  


Steve Avery did not take the stand in his own defense and when the judge gave him the opportunity to speak this is what he said:  



"Well your honor,  I'm sorry for Halbach's family, Teresa Halbach's family, what they are going through,  the hate that they got.  Nothing else will bring her back, and  uh, my family and everyone's friends and the community, it is hurting everybody. 
For myself,  Teresa Halbach,  I didn't kill,  I am innocent of all of this and I figure later on I will prove myself innocent and can take it from there.   That's all I got.  Thank you. "

Here is his statement with analysis with emphasis  added.  


"Well your honor, 


We note that he began with a pause to consider what he was going to say.  He had spent 18 years in prison for rape that he did not commit, but had committed other crimes, including crimes that had he been convicted, would have sent him to prison.  This is something that may have impacted his earlier statements particularly from the time he was first released.  He had threatened to kill, in writing, and there may be things within his language to suggest sexual crimes early in life.  He did not rape the victim he was charged with, however. 


Next, we consider the passage of time between the conviction and sentencing.  This was significant enough time to know what he was going to say. 


What would you say?


Can you analyze in spite of seeing the illicit influence that was used to obtain Brendan's confession?  The teen was fed words by the "confession expert" who manipulated the teen.  By doing this, they kept Teresa's family from knowing the truth of how Teresa died.  


Statement Analysis recognizes that where one begins a statement is always important, as it speaks to priority.  


He began with a pause and the first two words that followed the pause were, "I'm sorry."


We note that these words, under various elements or context, find their way into the guilty.  Note this in the language of Casey Anthony while speaking to the 911 operator as an example.  


This phrase, "I'm sorry" is particularly interesting to note that it came from a man who had been wrongfully imprisoned and knows what the injustice is like.  I believe his tempered statements when he was initially released were due to knowledge of things he had done before the rape conviction and not simply due to the coming financial windfall.  


The documentary began with his passive voice where he took a cat and burned it to death, tossing it alive into a fire.  This is something associated with sexual abuse.  That police thought he was the rapist was not a surprise. 


An innocent person is likely to state first and foremost, "I did not kill Teresa Halbach."  He might go on from there to say, "You did this to me before, and now again..." but the first and foremost statement should be the simple denial of the murder.  Not only was it not here, it was missing from the statements the documentary showed, including his phone conversations where it was expected. In times where he was asked about it, he consistently avoided denying it, instead opting for statements that we frequently hear from the guilty.  


In sentencing, freely speaking, this is the single highest expectation:  sentence one, priority one:  "I did not kill Teresa.  She was not at my house..." and so on.  


His priority:  "I'm sorry"


He was living free and set for the upcoming millions of dollars he and his lawyers were to receive and had become a celebrity of sorts.  


His priority?


He was sorry. 


Where one begins a statement is always important.  What was his sorrow?  What did he do to Teresa?  What did he coerce or convince his nephew into doing?  In Brendan's statement, to describe himself and Avery, he said, "we" repeatedly, until the fire, where he suddenly changed (reversing the law of economy) to "me and Steven"...



 I'm sorry for Halbach's family, 


He began with Halbach, the last name only of the victim.  This is not polite and likely reveals his emotion towards her, and here he then adds her first name:  



Teresa Halbach's family, 


closer to an appropriate social introduction.  This is a correction.  


what they are going through,  the hate that they got.  


What they are going through is to be deprived of their loved one, instead, he goes to the passive voice:


"the hate that they got",  in passivity, which avoids telling us who it is that the family hates, though presumably it is Steven Avery.  He is sorry that they hate, which is to feel bad for himself as the recipient of the hate.  Victimhood was a theme in the documentary, even when Steven was convicted of running a woman off the road and pointing a gun at her, he was portrayed as a victim due to the woman's connection to police.  


Please take this with the incomplete social introduction.  We use the social introduction to understand what the subject thinks of the person introduced at the time of the statement.  This is particularly useful in domestic homicide statements as well as domestic violence.  A good example is the New Year's shooting by police chief William McCollum who made it through an entire 911 call without using his wife's name, nor even the word "wife."   The analysis is here.



The suggestion of both the incomplete social introduction and the correction is feigned empathy for the victim's family.  

Nothing else will bring her back, 


What is the "nothing else" that he refers to? Is there something that can bring her back?

The context is his own sentencing.  

The judge told Avery that he was the most dangerous person he had ever had in his courtroom and that society, itself, was safer with him behind bars.  


The context is his sentencing, which he asserts will not bring back the victim.  


and  uh, my family and everyone' s friends and the community, it is hurting everybody

Here he completes the list:


1.  Halbach's family

2.  Teresa Halbach's family
3.  "my family"
4.  "everyone's friends"
5.  "the community"
6.  "everybody"

This is the entire list of those who have been hurt or damaged by the murder of Theresa Halbach.  It is interesting that he puts himself last in the order, even though he is the only one facing life in prison.  It is interesting to see how many others show up in his language.  This is to reduce the commitment to de facto innocence on his part.  


For myself,  Teresa Halbach,  I didn't kill I am innocent of all of this 

This statement needs attention.  It is not a reliable denial. 


1.  "for myself"

2.  "Theresa Halbach"
3.  "I didn't kill"
4.  "I am innocent"
5.  "all this"

First we note that he is not able to simply articulate the very same words he used years before regarding the rape.  I had asked readers watching the documentary to compare denials on the show.  He gave repeated denials readily regarding the rape and was incapable of issuing the same simple words to the murder. 


1.  "For me" is something for him, but not for others.  This is to say "in my opinion", allowing for someone else to have a different opinion, or a different verdict.  It is similar to the gnostic view point of having 'someone else living inside of me' who is incapable of whatever crime.  We hear this often in guilty statements, such as, 


"this isn't like me..." or "in my heart, I would not have done this..." 


An extreme example of this is the denial of Ryan Braun and PEDs where Braun had used a large painful needle to inject testosterone, while his statement not only is deceptive, but he literally uses the word "point" as he recalled the injection.  It is here.  


To him, he may not have done it, but the qualification, itself, is necessary, showing us his own recognition.  


In his denials, he did not say "I did not kill Teresa" nor "I didn't kill her..." but "they haven't found any evidence" and "they didn't prove nothing" and he did not even strongly assert planted evidence.  The documentary made this point strongly; whereas Avery, himself, did not.  


2.  "Teresa Halbach, I didn't kill, I am innocent"  is to reverse the order, but the commas are added due to the pause, which is closer to self-censoring, as he showed the disruption in the speed of transmission, than an actual pause.  


This is to avoid the simple denial, and to begin as if he was about to, but was incapable of doing so. 


This is consistent with the statements shown, particularly in phone calls, where he talked about the allegation against him. 


3.  "All this" not only uses the word "this", bringing him close to the allegation, it also uses the plural, "all."


One may argue that there were attendant crimes (or attendant allegations) but it is "murder" that is not only front and center, but it is "murder" that holds the life sentence.  This use of "all" is further indication that Teresa was not only murdered.  


Due to the poor interviewing and contamination done by investigators, we do not know what happened to the victim before she was shot and her body burned.  None of the interviews shown, conducted by professionals, allowed for the Free Editing Process.  Particularly, the seeking of the confession via writing, was to force feed wording to the reluctant teen who would have likely revealed important detail, had he been allowed to speak.  


He then shows that his thoughts will be long-term:  


and I figure later on I will prove innocent and can take it from there.   That's all I got.  Thank you. "


"That's all I got" is to show his limitation.  This is similar to the statement, "that's all I know" when one wishes to stop the flow of information and not be asked questions again.  It is a signal of not simply withholding information but the active suppression of information; that which takes greater effort.  This is likely why he did not take the stand in his own defense.  


Analysis Conclusion:


                Steven Avery killed Teresa Halbach.  


I do not know what he specifically did to Teresa Halbach, and where the actual killing took place,  but it likely included some form of sexual abuse and Avery likely coerced or persuaded his nephew, into some level of involvement so that he, Avery, would not be alone in this crime. 


As to allegation of evidence planting:   there is deception in the language of investigators, including on the witness stand, under oath.   


As to the prosecutor, his  unnecessary, bizarre and repeated references to water showed some sexual issue regarding him personally.  ("sweaty" and "perspiration") 


These are things that are guided by the language, in spite of prosecutorial misconduct, deception and the ruination of interviews by investigators.  An analyst must recognize in this case that what the state did was inflammatory as well as the documentary's "narration", that is, its message, via order and even music.  


Emotion must be identified before it can be eliminated.  At times, there were statements shown that were provocative and with a music score, there is a heightening of emotion, even as body language can impact the analyst.  The countenance of Andrew Colborn, for example, was noted not only on the stand, but he was given the task of escorting the prisoners as well, which was akin to heightening the insult.  


In order to reduce the influence of emotion upon a statement, the analyst must recognize its presence.  It is best dealt with:

a.  process the emotions
b.  the '40% rule' of revisiting analysis
c.  peer review 



Opinion 


This is simply my own opinion on the documentary and the case as presented.  Recently, the prosecutor has spoken out how unfair the documentary was.  Kratz did not show himself as a honest person by his speech.  During Avery's trial he said, "one man and one man only..." was responsible.  The teen's attorney not only allowed the teen to be interviewed without counsel, but did not even pick up on all that was said and done by professionals who's words were, at times, shocking and will likely impact for many years, local  community trust.  Why did he not fire back at the prosecutor with the prosecutor's own statement of "one man and one man only..."? Was he not paying attention?  This particular attorney was not honest in answering journalists' questions.  


During Kratz 'story telling' of 'entering the trailer' dramatics where he narrated a story with a high effeminate voice (not the same voice he used in press conferences nor when he was angry) when used water references.   He appeared to eroticize the telling of the  tale, for himself.  This was where the water references came in, and immediately connected 'sexual' activity (abuse, etc) of some form, for me, coming from the prosecutor, himself.  He did not have tangible details of the victim to work from.  This is likely why he repeated the water reference as he did, revealing something very wrong with himself simply by speaking.  


It was a bizarre and disgusting moment in the trial.  


Fair Trial?  Adequate Defense for the Teen?


Judging only from the documentary, the teen did not appear to get a fair trial, as his attorney was repeatedly deceptive, and showed little interest in the case other than to be done with it, and offered no protection to his client.  The interviewers were so poorly done that they can and should be used in demonstrations in learning Analytical Interviewing.  


I wonder how much involvement Brendan had in the case and suspect that Avery convinced him to sexually abuse, and perhaps even rape, the victim.  The details were lost due to the incompetence of the interviewers.  Very few words that were ultimately attributed to Brendan were actually used by him in the free editing process.  


The pronoun use tells me that Brendan was present for the burning of the body, but the investigators were unjust and violated not only civil rights, but were deceptive on the stand and about evidence, which could have left jurors no choice but to conclude that the state failed to prove its case.   


I do not believe they did this to protect anyone else, as in a conspiracy to bury Avery,  rather they were "pragmatic"; that is, they believed that Avery had killed her, and they would do whatever it took, including deceptive words and practices, to accomplish it.  


Two investigators, in particular, were easily shown to be deceptive and seemed to believe themselves above the law.  


The attorneys who defended Avery gave indication that they believe he killed Teresa Halbach.  


His family also gave indication that they know or suspected that he killed Teresa.  


Even in the years after the conviction, Steven Avery did not issue a denial, instead kept with "the truth will come out" and "I will show myself innocent", putting the onus upon himself to "show" this innocence that he, himself, does not believe in. 


The state's misconduct may not have only been deceptive, but may have bordered on criminal.  Two of the investigators' arrogance was such that they lacked self awareness as to their own behavior.  A legally sound, open ended interview of the teenager, conducted by trained and patient professionals, would have likely yielded details that are still missing from this case. 

The conspiracy to frame Avery was something the defense followed because of the blood in the vehicle, the punctured tube, and the lack of blood following a narrative that did not come from either suspect.  This might have been enough for 'reasonable doubt' for some, but using this is risky.  


It was not risky painting the police or the state as 'the bad guys' (even though this was a time before it became popular to blame police) because they had enough bad behavior in the court room and on tape to justify it.  


The risk was in making the theory work. 


The 'conspirators' knowledge of the bonfire would be something that jurors would not be able to get past.   There was also a great deal of evidence and testimony left out of the film, and the film was edited with a bias toward Steven Avery being framed and ultimately innocent.  It will be interesting to read additional transcripts of Steven and Brendan, if they are available, which would reveal a clearer picture of what happened to Teresa. 


******


Here is what the judge said after Avery spoke:

m

"I have to say, Mr. Avery, that what particularly strikes the court, as I was preparing for today's proceedings, is the... is the continuing danger that you pose to those around you, evidenced not only by the homicide in this case, but by its timing in your life. Whatever crimes may have been a part of your past, at the time you committed this homicide, everything suggested that your life was poised to take a turn for the better. However, despite having the widespread sympathy of the public and the prospects for a significant financial award, you committed the horrible crime that brings you here to be sentenced today. In terms of assessing your danger to society, the evidence forces me to conclude that you are probably the most dangerous individual ever to set foot in this courtroom. Your attorney has argued eloquently that the court should make you eligible for release at some point in the future. But from what I see, nothing in your life suggests that society would ever be safe from your behavior. One of the things that strikes me the most is that as you've grown older, your crimes have increased in severity. This crime was committed at a time when you were 43 years old. Given the trend of your crimes, uh... society has a legitimate right to be concerned that there is a serious risk you would reoffend and commit serious offenses if you're ever permitted to be released from prison."


64 comments:

Anonymous said...

Canada here. I'm on the first episode and look forward to SAas I go along. So thank you!

Anonymous said...

I'm starting to think the older brother/ Avery's nephew Bobby did it. Listen to his testimony. He mentions taking a shower right at the presumed time of murder, he also says he meant to go hunting that day. He at first can't name Teresa, he says he "saw a vehicle drive up and start taking pictures". The vehicle started taking pictures???

still not done with series. cops clearly planted tons of evidence, leads one to wonder did cops do the murder too? But Bobby sure gave the biggest whopper of testimony. so far.

Anonymous said...


http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wkow/newsdocs/avery document page 23 +.pdf

check it. all the other suspects. Bobby is the one IMO.

Anonymous said...

Is it possible one of them shot her as she was on the lot and then covered it?
If they slit her throat in SA home, blood would be every where.
Cleaning the garage floor with bleach?
Where was the mini van she photographed?

rjb said...

Hurrah! I picked up on much of this when I watched, and caught the "I'm sorry" immediately, both in Steven Avery's statement and Brendan's testimony. It's exciting to see how much I've learned in the past couple of months since I've been reading this blog.

I do have a question about the phrase "I'm sorry." What would one expect an innocent person to say in this situation if they wished to express sympathy for the family of the victim? If a someone I know loses a loved one, I am likely to say, "I'm sorry for your loss," which is what most people I know would say in those circumstances. How does being accused of a crime one did not commit change the way one would express this sentiment?

Thank you, Peter!

rjb said...

Oh, also: the sexting scandal that Kratz was involved in after the trial. Is it possible that this behaviour and preoccupation are why he brought water up so much? He was misbehaving sexually, a "dirty, dirty boy" so to speak. While I was watching, I did notice that he spoke about sweat an awful lot, but I didn't know that sweat falls into the "water" category when analyzing someone's speech until I read this article.

John mcgowan said...

OT Update:

Davey Blackburn is still posting excerpts from Amanda's journal


https://twitter.com/daveyblackburn

Anonymous said...

I'm hoping you do an analysis of Peyton Manning's public comments in response to the doping allegations. He gave you plenty to work with over the weekend.

rjb said...

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

According to Milwaukee Journal Sentinel columnist Mike Nichols, six of the years Steven Avery served beginning in 1985 were for his actions against his cousin. He only served 12 years on the false rape conviction, an important distinction to my mind. Of course, "he served 18 years for a crime he did not commit" sounds a lot better (if one is trying to create sympathy for Avery) than "he served 6 years for a crime he did commit and then 12 years for a crime he did not commit." He was serving the sentences concurrently, but he would have spent 6 years in prison, regardless of the rape conviction.

Anonymous said...

Considering the crime occurred on Oct. 31st in Wisconsin, the "sweating" did sound strange.

As you may know by now, the prosecutor tried to extort a victim of domestic violence for his own pleasure. Beaten, broken and let down by a ex-boyfriend, and then by the state that was charged with providing safety and human rights for all-just not her, that is. (this may be the lying you're picking up on)

They'd already had the rapist under surveillance days before the attack on the victim that blamed Avery. He did have similar facial features as Avery. Been caught stalking, masturbating, and IIRC, went on to kill. Avery was picked once off a photo and then a line-up.

The other cops that sounded as if they were lying may have been into the same type of crimes as the DA. They may have been there for the show, to rub elbows and further their careers, or merely on the buddy system to keep the status quo. It is evident they cared less about the real rapist running around and even less about the murder of another young woman. Just going through the motions.

Turner said...

I'm to episode 7 so I haven't gotten to Avery's statement after verdict but in episode two it shows him in an interrogation room and he IS giving a reliable denial of the murder. Please address this.
This blog post is dealing with a statement given after conviction and to the family. As the poster above mentioned the "I'm sorry" is in a different context than a person making a 911 call.
Also, do you make any concessions for a statement/person said to have an IQ of 7??
So far the defense attorneys have done an impeccable job connecting the corrupt investigators and sheriffs department to the crime scene that they were not suppose to be a part of.
If the Lynch pin for Avery is the lawyer putting his head down when asked a question at the end of the trial, I do not think I can get past everything they have proven in defense of Avery.

Anonymous said...

John, good at Blackburns' efforts. It only proves she was a better preacher than he.

Sus said...

Turner,
S Avery did not give a reliable denial. He uses "it", and we do not know what "it" is.

Kratz also mistakenly called Teresa a "little girl" in his opening statement, then corrected himself to "young woman."

Anon, my radar also went off when Bobby mentioned taking a shower. It was unnecessary to his testimony. It was at the time he saw Teresa on Avery property, and right before he went hunting.

Turner said...

I'll go back and watch, I feel like I should be taking notes! This is an incredible opportunity seeing all aspects of this mind blowing case.

One BIG question if someone can answer: did Avery testify in his first trial? -when we know him to be innocent.

rjb said...

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2015/12/22/steven-avery-case-timeline/77742664/

According to this article, Steven Avery produced several alibi witnesses, but it doesn't say that he testified. I have been hunting, but so far I haven't found anything that says if he did or did not testify in the rape trial.

Peter Hyatt said...

This documentary is one of the best samples for Statement Analysis I can think of.

It has everything.

It is the perfect "Emotion" versus "Science" elements as propaganda, music, order, editing and so on are in play.

It attempts to villainize police, who deserve it at times, reveals a pervert prosecutor, and tries to make a pervert killer into a victim.

It is GREAT for Statement Analysis and especially for those of you who possess the self awareness to highlight your emotional response.

In terms of Avery's guilt, it is not difficult to discern and those who feel he is innocent, would likely feel differently if they read the case without music, and the specific camera work, as well as the focus of the "narrator" of the documentary.

It is a wealth of information for analysis.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

rjb,

the water is likely an indication into his personality, not the event to follow. He likely sent off a few "creep meters" with his voice manipulations even to the untrained. This is who he is.

As to the "I'm sorry"

Think of how you might say it under innocent circumstances.

"I am sorry for the family's loss, but the same killer could target them because I didn't killer her and the killer is on the loose!"

The priority would be: "I didn't kill Teresa" and then later on, as he works through his statement, perhaps in the very end, sympathy for the victim.

I take this even further:

I believe Steven Avery had sexual misconduct BEFORE the wrongful conviction and police thought he was the rapist because they knew of his perversion.

Listen to his cat killing story: passive language!

He actually soaked the cat in both oil and gasoline before throwing it in the fire!

I would be looking for child victims of his from many years ago.

He was in prison wrongfully convicted of the rape of THAT victim: I bet there are other victims, including children, from him. He is, as the judge said, a very dangerous man. He has poor impulse control and likely did rape his victim before killing her, in spite of the millions of dollars awaiting him. It was a crime of opportunity.

The police were awful, from some being utterly corrupt to others just too intellectually incapable of doing police work. Some were zealous and pragmatic, while others were flat out deceptive, dangerous people.

This is one of the best training tools that I know of.

Peter

rjb said...

Peter,

Thank you for the clarification.

I have another question regarding "I'm sorry," if you wouldn't mind answering it. I am bothered when I hear someone say "I apologize" rather than "I'm sorry" for something. It strikes me as distancing themselves from the offense, whatever it may be, and not taking responsibility. I interpret it as, "I am apologizing because that's what I'm supposed to do, but I am not taking ownership for what I have done." Is this me being overly sensitive, or in statement analysis is there a difference between "I apologize" and "I'm sorry?"

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

RE "Sorry"

When some says "i'm sorry" i find it more sincere if they say why they are "sorry" not just "sorry". "I'm sorry i stayed out so late last when i said i would be home early. I understand why you are upset because dinner was ruined by the time i came home" This said in the free editing process, and not an answer to a question. However, if asked why, then explain why you were late. Giving the reason why you were late without asked, then becomes sensitive.

John mcgowan said...

OT Update:

Breaking News

Grand Jury Declines to Indict Officers in Tamir Rice Case, Prosecutor Says


An Ohio Grand Jury has declined to indict two police officers in the death of Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old boy who was shot dead by a Cleveland police officer last year, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Timothy McGinty said today.

McGinty recommended that no charges be filed.

The law gives the benefit of the doubt to officers who must make "split second" decisions when they believe their lives are in danger, McGinty said. "It became clear" that the officers' actions were not criminal, he told reporters.

Tamir was holding a toy gun when he was shot by officer Timothy Loehmann at a Cleveland playground in November 2014.

The grand jury was hearing evidence to determine if any charges would be brought against Loehmann or his partner, Frank Garmback.

Tamir Rice Case: Officer Says He 'Knew It Was a Gun' and Aimed for Weapon, According to Statement
Inside the 2 Expert Reports that Found Tamir Rice Shooting 'Reasonable'
McGinty today called Tamir's death a "tragedy" but not a crime. He said charges against the officers wouldn't bring justice for Tamir.

https://gma.yahoo.com/prosecutor-announcement-tamir-rice-grand-jury-investigation-183917904--abc-news-topstories.html?cid=fb_gma_sf

Anonymous said...

Your logic is sound for middle class speakers of standard english, but statement analysis like this shouldn't be applied to someone who so obviously speaks a non-standard form of the language, not just with specific words "ain't" "seen", etc. but with his syntax and expressions.
At one point in the documentary, for example, he and his mother use the expression "by you" meaning "with you" or at your place" when they talk about where Brendan is. At least I think it was Steve. It might have been Brendan in the jail conversation, but the point still stand that that is an expression people outside the community wouldn't use.
What I am arguing is that inside that community, all the language shows their etiquette is different from standard English, so whether or not he says "sorry" doesn't follow the same rules.
Also, when I saw the show from the beginning, I noticed that he continually expressed support for the victim of the rape who had testified against him and his language was consistently overtly polite, and soft-spoken.
On top of that, considering that he is an uneducated man, I think its quite likely that his starting out with "sorry" and "the hate they got" etc. is his well intended way of trying to show people he wasn't going to hold anything against them.

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
Your logic is sound for middle class speakers of standard english, but statement analysis like this shouldn't be applied to someone who so obviously speaks a non-standard form of the language, not just with specific words "ain't" "seen", etc. but with his syntax and expressions.
At one point in the documentary, for example, he and his mother use the expression "by you" meaning "with you" or at your place" when they talk about where Brendan is. At least I think it was Steve. It might have been Brendan in the jail conversation, but the point still stand that that is an expression people outside the community wouldn't use.
What I am arguing is that inside that community, all the language shows their etiquette is different from standard English, so whether or not he says "sorry" doesn't follow the same rules.
Also, when I saw the show from the beginning, I noticed that he continually expressed support for the victim of the rape who had testified against him and his language was consistently overtly polite, and soft-spoken.
On top of that, considering that he is an uneducated man, I think its quite likely that his starting out with "sorry" and "the hate they got" etc. is his well intended way of trying to show people he wasn't going to hold anything against them.



How would you have us understand "I'm sorry" in your description?

"I'm sorry" is something that Statement Analysis notes as a statistic entering language.

That in each and every statement where it was applicable for Avery to tell us that he did not murder the victim, he was unable to do so.

We have a rule about this that has served us for many decades in many cases:

If someone is unwilling or incapable of saying he did not do it, we do not say it for him.

This is the first time I have heard that Statement Analysis cannot be applied to people who use "ain't" in their language. It shows how far one will go to satisfy emotion over logic, which was the point of the documentary.

For example, he threw a cat across fire and it got killed.
The passivity was used to minimize.

In reality, he soaked the cat in oil (burning) and some gas (explosive) and threw it, alive into the fire.

His need to minimize is evident even in low IQ and under-educated language.

We use Statement Analysis successfully in defense of adults with developmental disability who are very low functioning.

In your conclusion, can you show other examples where Statement Analysis was shown to be ineffective due to IQ or lack of education?
Peter Hyatt

Peter Hyatt said...

John

We do not interpret "I'm sorry" in terms of whether it is sincere, or even why it is used.

The point is strictly a statistical one.

Casey Anthony, the example I cited, used it as to say, "I did not hear you" so that the 911 operator would repeat herself.

It is a note we make, but it is not in relation to the quality of being sorry, remorseful, or untying else. It is the inclusion, alone, that we consider.



Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous Turner said...
I'm to episode 7 so I haven't gotten to Avery's statement after verdict but in episode two it shows him in an interrogation room and he IS giving a reliable denial of the murder. Please address this.
This blog post is dealing with a statement given after conviction and to the family. As the poster above mentioned the "I'm sorry" is in a different context than a person making a 911 call.
Also, do you make any concessions for a statement/person said to have an IQ of 7??
So far the defense attorneys have done an impeccable job connecting the corrupt investigators and sheriffs department to the crime scene that they were not suppose to be a part of.
If the Lynch pin for Avery is the lawyer putting his head down when asked a question at the end of the trial, I do not think I can get past everything they have proven in defense of Avery.


I listened to it and it is not a RD.

His IQ is very low and we have used SA in protecting victims of sexual abuse who had mental retardation and/or adult autism.

Where there is communication there is a presupposition:

The person wants to be understood.

In deception, a person wants to deceive.

We do shift our pardigm downward with those who are mentally retarded.

I even had a case where one who had adult autism had delusional thinking: angels and demons speaking to him.

I was able to show the difference between his fantastical language and his factual recall of reality was evident in his choice of words .

Even those with very low IQ who wish to be deceptive, show their attempt to deceive.

rjb said...

Anonymous @ 3:26

I think "by you" when they mean "with you" or "at your house" is likely a colloquialism rather than an indicator of low intelligence.

What I have learned in this discussion is that regardless of IQ, one's priority as an accused innocent is with defending oneself against the charges at hand, and that sympathy for the victim takes a back seat to self-preservation. One's biological and emotional imperatives to protect one's own self-interests would not change, whatever one's IQ may be.

John mcgowan said...

Peter

I was explaining it in general , in life, not in regards to "sorry" in S/A terms. I may not have articulated it very well.

Anonymous said...

"I am sorry for the family's loss, but the same killer could target them because I didn't killer her and the killer is on the loose!" "

I doubt most people think a killer will target them just because they killed a family member or someone they know. I would suspect they've been trained to think they'd target someone that looks like the person that was killed. I wouldn't.

Elizabeth K. Casey said...

Thank you so much for posting this! I was hoping you would because I was honestly questioning whether or not Avery was guilty. I have a Masters in Counseling and so we learned how to do our best to interpret body language, word choices, etc in better understanding our clients and trying to interpret their data and make sense of their story. So some of what I learned was beneficial when watching this, specifically watching Colburn on the stand. He exhibited signs of lying and feeling highly uncomfortable under scrutiny (which if he had nothing to hide then he wouldn't act that way). So seeing that their were officers and investigators acting unprofessionally and showing signs of lying and manipulation made me question whether or not Avery was guilty.

What made me feel sure that he was guilty was the part where Brendon was telling his mom on the phone he did it and Steve made him do it and she started cursing out Steve. If she truly believed Steve, her brother, was incapable of murder she would have argued with her son but she showed us that she had her doubts and that she believed he was capable of being a murderer. If someone told me (even my own kid (I think)) that my brother killed someone I would fight tooth and nail that he didn't and would repeatedly question this person's testimony bc I do not believe my brother is capable of committing this act under any circumstances and I believe that 100%. The fact that when Brendan said they committed those heinous acts and burned her his mom believed it and believed Steve manipulated Brendon into doing it made me believe this is probably what most likely happened. Brendon seems easily manipulated and handicapped and though I think he should probably be locked up I think it should be in a psych ward, I think, this is my best educated guess, was that he felt threatened by Steve and coerced into doing things he wouldn't do and was traumatized and needs counseling. He still did it and should be held accountable but I would be so interested in counseling him and hearing what comes out. I think there is a lot of twisted going on in that family that is hidden.

Peter you've expressed that you are a Christian and I am as well and we often talked in my counseling program about generational sin and how we see that playing out and you find generations of people in a family often committing the same sin. Example, abuse victims sometimes go on to be abusers. I wish there were more stories revealed about Avery's childhood etc

Elizabeth K. Casey said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Turner said...

Peter said:

"I believe Steven Avery had sexual misconduct BEFORE the wrongful conviction and police thought he was the rapist because they knew of his perversion.

Listen to his cat killing story: passive language!

He actually soaked the cat in both oil and gasoline before throwing it in the fire!

I would be looking for child victims of his from many years ago.

He was in prison wrongfully convicted of the rape of THAT victim: I bet there are other victims, including children, from him. He is, as the judge said, a very dangerous man. He has poor impulse control and likely did rape his victim before killing her, in spite of the millions of dollars awaiting him. It was a crime of opportunity."

I am going by what was presented in the 10 episodes, those things ^^you mention, were not. And that is a lot more than statement analysis coming into play.

If he didn't commit this murder I do not conclude that "he was a very dangerous man."

- The music was persuasive but only telling me that the documentary was written from the point of view of Avery being innocent. It did not add to anyone's statement, it didn't alter the misconduct of LE and it didn't bolster the creepiness of the prosecutor.
-Since this was a documentary, I do believe I am taking into account more than just Avery's statement. I have to consider that these people put him away for years and knew for years that he was probably innocent and the real perp was on the streets. Knowing that, I am persuaded to believe they could do it again. They had a lot to lose this time, makes it even more believable.
- I really do think his attorneys believe he's innocent.
- I could not find anyone in the documentary in Avery's family who ultimately thought he was guilty.
- I can believe the nephew's statement was completely coeherced. The detectives were 100% manipulative and dealing with a boy whom everyone described as "dumb".
-I think this family was possibly an embarrassment to the community, a big eyesore as their junkyard spanned acres, they were uneducated, poor and probably at the least rumors of sexual misconduct happening but it is possible to be all that and not be a murderer.
-The prosecutor was obviously set on a win, just as Avery's attorneys said.
-I believe the DNA lab was persuaded by the investigator and forced a result.

Hey Jude said...

Dean Strang, Avery Defense Attorney interview - still troubled by Avery case

http://www.wkow.com/story/30834876/2015/12/27/attorney-dean-strang-discusses-stevern-avery-case-on-capitol-city-sunday

A really good interview. You are right, Peter - he's not convinced that Avery is innocent - (or that he is guilty). It's good to know that there were some decent people involved with this case. Interestingly, he and the other defence attorney are still in contact with, and regard themselves as pro bono resources for Steven Avery.

Turner said...

http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/2015/12/who-killed-teresa-halbach-if-it-wasnt-steven-avery.html

List others that the defense believed may have committed the murder. Seems plausible

Anonymous said...

@Turner
-I think this family was possibly an embarrassment to the community, a big eyesore as their junkyard spanned acres, they were uneducated, poor and probably at the least rumors of sexual misconduct happening but it is possible to be all that and not be a murderer.""

Think again. This small town of appx 12,000 most likely had dealings with this salvage yard at one time or another considering the nasty weather. Had they not been an eyesore, people would be paying out the nose for auto repair.To order new vs. the cost of a pull-apart place-significant savings!

No one complains of an antique shop, a cemetery, or other likewise eyesores. No one that lives within the realm of reality that is.

Price a fuel pump new; then used. How about a bumper, fender, or maybe a transmission from a car that's still good but totaled out due to price of repair according to what insurance will pay to fix.

Some nowadays are trying to force people to buy at least half the salvaged auto instead of selling just one part. Kinda like a big box store where you have to house the excess.

Maybe they were uneducated. However, they may be sitting on a goldmine.

rjb said...

Anonymous @ 7:01

A friend of my cousin's is from Manitowoc. We were discussing the show on Facebook, and while the friend hasn't seen it yet, she said that the overwhelming majority of people there believe that Avery is guilty. In my opinion, especially in light of so recently being exonerated in the rape case, there must be a reason why the town was so willing to think ill of him.

The documentary, particularly in the interviews with Avery's court appointed defender from the early '80s, makes a point of claiming that the Avery family were considered social outcasts, and various Avery family members say things that support this.

There's a world of difference between antique shops & cemeteries and a salvage yard. Salvage yards may be useful and helpful if one is in need of a particular automobile part, but providing a necessary service to the community in no way means that one is therefore automatically thought well of. Whether or not the Averys were "sitting on a goldmine," the facts appear to be that the town held negative opinions of the Avery clan, and it is unlikely that those arose out of sheer snobbery.

Anonymous said...

If he ran someone off the road and pointed a gun at them, that's reason enough to think ill of them. Regardless of the rape conviction, that is waaaaaaaaaay too scary to comprehend. It is for this reason I'd believe him guilty of murder.That and the cat burning.

Low IQ? Perhaps lead paint is at work here considering the time of his birth, family poverty, etc. Often these people aren't ever out of the woods.

I doubt the documentary filmers are doing anyone a favor other than themselves.

Anonymous said...

After perusing the Youtube channel, it appears most following this are conspiracy theorists like Icke supporters, people with alien eyes on gravatars, and names like Nephillim with numbers such as 666.

If anyone had cause to 'set-up' Avery, it would be these people. Thus explains the mystery "German" man.

Salvage yard and auto parts have historically been a great place to hide and haul drugs.

Anonymous said...

Please don't give Anne Brocklehurst blog hits. She's is someone who likes drama and takes a position and won't change her mind no matter how strong the evidence is. She posts on reddit and has terrible logic. She agreed to an interview with a podcaster in the Adnan Syed case and ended up looking completely foolish because she couldn't back up her claims.

MzOpinion8d said...

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

Fassbender: Work with us a little.

Wiegert: Think of your family.

STEVEN: I did not do it.

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

STEVEN I did not do it.

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

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

So you're telling me somebody planted the body?

STEVEN: I didn't do it.

Who did it?

STEVEN: I don't know.

Steve.

STEVEN: I do not know.

Steve, think of your family here for a second.

STEVEN: 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.

STEVEN: I didn't do this one.

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

STEVEN: 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?

STEVEN: No, I didn't. I didn't do nothing.

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


He says "I did not do it" and "I didn't do it" several times in this interview excerpt. Can you please explain why these don't count as reliable denials? I'm confused about it and need an "explain like I'm 5" explanation lol.

rjb said...

MzOpinion8d,

My understanding, both from this specific blog post and others on this site is that "it" doesn't address the specific allegation. "I didn't kill her" is a RD because it specifically answers the question or accusation being brought against the suspect. "I didn't do it" is not a RD because "it" is vague and could mean anything to the person speaking.

If I still don't get it either, maybe Peter or one of the more experienced readers here can clarify it for us.

Sus said...

It sounds pretty reliable to me, also. But I understand that "it." makes it unreliable. He should say in the free process what he didn't do. He certainly knows what he is being accused of.
"I did not kill Teresa." would be a reliable denial.

I am suspicious of the entire broadcast. I'm not certain they have the questioning in chronological order or Avery's entire answers. I found Brendan's police interviews, and they were different than portrayed on the show.

tania cadogan said...

Anonymous MzOpinion8d said...

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

Fassbender: Work with us a little.

Wiegert: Think of your family.

STEVEN: I did not do it.

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

STEVEN I did not do it.

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

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

So you're telling me somebody planted the body?

STEVEN: I didn't do it.

Who did it?

STEVEN: I don't know.

Steve.

STEVEN: I do not know.

Steve, think of your family here for a second.

STEVEN: 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.

STEVEN: I didn't do this one.

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

STEVEN: 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?

STEVEN: No, I didn't. I didn't do nothing.

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


He says "I did not do it" and "I didn't do it" several times in this interview excerpt. Can you please explain why these don't count as reliable denials? I'm confused about it and need an "explain like I'm 5" explanation lol.


A strong reliable denial consists of three parts.
First person singular I
Past tense Did not or didn't
Event specific Kill Teresa Halbach

Anything other than this is an unreliable denial.
Less than the three or mre than the three makes it unreliable.

If he said I would never kill Teresa it is unreliable as WOULD is future conditional.

If he said I didn't do it it is unreliable as he doesn't tell us what the IT is he didn't do.

If he says I didn't kill her questions would need to be asked to ascertain who the Her is.

If he says I didn't kill Teresa and it is a direcr response to the question Did you kill Teresa? it is unreliable as it is a parroted response (uses the interviewers own words in his reply)

If he says I didn't kill Teresa, i would never do such a thing it is unreliable since it breaks the requirement of a strong reliable denial of three parts.

If he says I did not harm Teresa It is unreliable as he minimises the kill down to harm.

If he says I didn't kill Teresa, i would never do such a thing, i could never hurt her, i loved her He goes beyond the boundaries of the question asked Did you kill Teresa? and explains why he couldn't have killed her.

The denial must be given during the process of free editing using his own language and first person singular,past tense, event specific.

Anything else is unreliable and needs to be investigated further

Sus said...

Thank you, Hobbs!

rjb said...

Thank you, Tania!

Anonymous said...

"I didn't do it" is only considered a reliable denial on this blog when celebrities are trying to save a convicted child murderer from the death penalty and within their fold is a high profile FBI agent hoping his statements will send someone else to the penitentiary for further studies.

When people want to rub elbows with others that will further their career, they'll say or do anything-regardless of their religion or lack thereof.

Anonymous said...

the documentary is undoubtedly editing footage to shape the dramatic suspense of the series, we are unquestionably getting a distorted view of events and statements as a whole. they are also shuffling footage out of chronological order - because it makes for better storytelling, their priority is to make the material work as a TV series.

I don't know if that means any individual is really guilty or innocent - I just know it means - you can't think you know either only from watching the doc series.

Anonymous said...

From what I read it meant a big crime spree was heading their way. Just the wording, the trying to redux what's already been done, and the immature presentation of the whole ordeal.

Hey Jude said...

For anyone's reference/interest as to how much of a raw deal Brendan might have got - here are some links, chronologically ordered, and drawn together from Convoluted Brain, YouTube and Reddit:

Brendan Dassey Police Interview Videos, Transcripts and Trial Transcripts - links with the accompanying descriptions

Feb 27 2006
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cpfIqsB1Fyg

Published on 29 Dec 2015 This is the police interview that was done after Brendan Dassey and his mother were put up at a hotel by police and he spoke with police the evening before. This is Brendan Dassey's first known recorded statement

March 1st
Transcript of audio recording while Brendan Dassey was Transported to Manitowoc County.
http://convolutedbrian.com.s3.amazonaws.com/dassey/01Mar2006/01Mar2006audio.pdf

March 1st, 2006
Part One
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NYOaIDxirHE

Published on 28 Dec 2015 Brendan Dassey Police Interview on March 1. 2006 Part #1.


Part Two
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rJt6j5E1y_s

Published on 28 Dec 2015 Brendan Dassey Police Interview on March 1. 2006 Part #2.


Transcript for March 1st, (follows on from transcript of conversation in the police vehicle):

http://convolutedbrian.com.s3.amazonaws.com/dassey/01Mar2006/01Mar2006Transcript.pdf

--

May 13th 2006

Part One
https://youtu.be/VTipx6RfTC0

Published on 29 Dec 2015 This is the part 1 of the Brendan Dassey police interview that was done on May 13, 2006. This is the interview that was arranged by Len Kachinsky after Brendan Dassey spoke with Michael O'Kelly and was conducted without Len Kachinsky being present.


Part Two
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nN-4qFhRttE

Published on 29 Dec 2015 This is the part 2 of the Brendan Dassey police interview that was done on May 13, 2006. This is the interview that was arranged by Len Kachinsky after Brendan Dassey spoke with Michael O'Kelly and was conducted without Len Kachinsky being present.

Transcript of Brendan's Confession, May 13th, 2006
http://convolutedbrian.com.s3.amazonaws.com/dassey/13May2006/13May06Transcript.pdf


Complete Transcripts - Brendan Dassey's Trial

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3y6jzw/brendan_dassey_trial_transcripts/

Anonymous said...

I'm curious if a trial statement (after likely being coached by defense attorneys) can still be considered free editing. Likewise, with the sub-par interrogation techniques (and I still haven't seen the first moments of Avery's interrogation) can Avery's statements then be considered free editing as well? I'm very interested if someone who has seen and heard all records of interviews and conversations with loved ones throughout the entire accusation; and if throughout witnessing all of it, there is really never once that Avery says "I didn't kill Teresa."

And now if this type of analysis is so widely accepted as truth, can we assume that defence attorneys are now in the habit of coaching their clients on how to give a reliable statement of innocence? What's the next step in determining honesty in current and future cases?

Charles Sutherland said...

Some people in Wisconsin talk like that.

Charles Sutherland said...

Some people in Wisconsin talk like that.

Anonymous said...

It's the Youpee dialect. It comes from the many Scandinavian immigrants that settled in the area.

Would be interested to know anyone's thoughts on Scott Tadych the step father of Brendan. I felt his comments were 'off'.

I also would like to know HOW the police knew to go and look for a couple of forgotten bone fragments in the quarry. To all intents and purposes it must have looked as if the body was burnt behind the house - indeed this is how Brendan described it. Were the bones in the quarry confirmed as being from Theresa or merely human and if they weren't hers, then why didn't the police start going through missing persons flies... Because that's another body and would make a lot more sense if SA or whoever killed Teresa HAD DONE THIS BEFORE.

Anonymous said...

I suggest you compare it his statements following this case to his statements following his wrongful conviction for the earlier rape charge. His choice of language is almost identical. "I didn't do it." What do you make of that?

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
I suggest you compare it his statements following this case to his statements following his wrongful conviction for the earlier rape charge. His choice of language is almost identical. "I didn't do it." What do you make of that?
January 4, 2016 at 9:33 PM

This is what I asked readers to do: listen to his denials (plural) about the rape, and then listen to all the times where he should say "I didn't kill Teresa" and he does not. The difference is striking.

When he finally says he didn't do it (remember, the doc has sought to portray him as innocent), he does so only in by parroting the investigator;s words.

Steven Avery killed Teresa.

Peter

Anonymous said...

I disagree. From what I've seen both statements are almost identical in that he proclaims his innocence to both charges by stating "I didn't do it." Do you have access to statements I have not accessed? Do you have links?

Anonymous said...

First of all, I find it interesting that conclusions are drawn here without qualification. The expert plugs the subject into the formula and out pops the answer with complete certitude. How about "it's possible Steven Avery killed Theresa" or "nothing I see here vindicates Steven Avery," but to say with conviction that Steven Avery committed the homicide based on his syntax and grammar is foolish and even dangerously ignorant. Moreover, I don't believe one can reliably use the comparisons for this purpose. The only standard of reference should be the subject itself [himself]. Comparable data could produce a more progressively accurate result as it used against a more progressively similar subject. However, we have no way of knowing through these examples how Steven Avery would truthfully convey information in any given circumstance. He is a test subject of a singular category, made all the more unique by his unique culture, upbringing, [lack of] education, low aptitude, legal system history, etc. More data regarding Steven Avery would obviously reveal a better analysis, but I believe comparing this particular individual against an average sample pool and then declaring a result with absolute conviction is BS.
Additionally, I am a person who was raised in a very strict, religious, and judgemental household bordering on mentally abusive. In my early teens I discovered that lying to my parents, and by extension to those which whom they interacted, resulted in a more tolerable life experience for me. I eventually became an accomplished liar to them. I realized to make the lie easily believable, I would deny with or state the sharpest, most succinct phrase I could generate regarding the subject, all while looking them straight in the eye. Conversely, I realized that any denials I would initially make concerning unfounded accusations were indirect, usually quite general in context, and would progressively become even more general. Something like, "That didn't happen," to, "What are you even talking about?" to "No way," to, "NO, NO, NO, NO!" I'm not suggesting that Steven Avery is a skilled liar, just that too much attention to this kind of analysis is foolhardy and a best guess at best.
FYI. Don't worry about me, my days of torturing animals, bedwetting, and pyromania are waning- now I'm just a trial attorney. Not really.

Layla said...

This is a first. I believe Steven Avery is innocent. I have read quite a bit on the subject.
This is an entire clan of very low IQ people in an area with a distict, odd dialect. This man was framed every which way. Why not look at his brother, Earl Avery, who was convicted of molesting his own two girls?
Read before you are quick to judge,

Anonymous said...

Steven Avery and Brendan Daasey were denied a fair trial. Full Stop. Video evidence clearly shows that Brendan's statements were coerced. Blood evidence does not match with the alleged crime, other suspects were not investigated, the investigation was not independent as stated by previous police statements, Steven's Blood samples from a previous case (one which he was proved innocent) were tampered with by someone in the local police force (and likely used to set up Steven subject to an accurate test). The police theory of how Teresa died has no significant proof. Her key's were obviously sterilised before they were planted as there was none of Teresa's DNA on it, despite it being her car(and key's). We can analyse the speech of the Avery family as much as we like , but the fact is, this family are not capable of making a clear argument in their defence. None of the Avery's family language resemble that of intelligent people and cannot be analysed as such. The American Justice system really stinks. There is no way Steven would be convicted in the UK, or even Ireland. USA justice sucks.

Anonymous said...

I find it interesting that nowhere in this article is Steven Avery's IQ is not brought up. I would think that his low IQ would come into play when talking about articulation, etc.

Anonymous said...

Good stuff. During the interrogation, SA says "I didn't do it" multiple times. What about when he says: "I didn't do this one."

Didn't that jump out at any one? Wouldn't this mean or say, I didn't do this, but I have done this before? Wow. Thoughts?

MaryL said...

I'm new at this process of Statement Analysis, having just discovered it following MaM.
It seems sad to me that Steven Avery beginning his statement by expressing sympathy for Teresa's family rather than thinking more of himself and expressing his innocence is one of the things that leads you to think he is guilty. I also imagine the final 'That's all I got' is not an expression of limitation, rather a translation from the oft repeated phrase 'That's all I have' that the attorney's seem to end their questioning with .
I'm also very curious to hear your take on the statement made at sentencing by Teresa's brother, and his other comments and general demeanour. He did not seem to me to show the emotions I would expect of a young man who's sister has been violently killed. In fact at the start of this sentencing the whole family seem to be smiling happily when greeted by the grinning Ken Kratz at a time when I would expect them to be reliving a highly emotional event. I'm not suggesting he, or any of the family, are guilty. I'm trying to establish if there is even enough evidence that Teresa really was the source of the burnt bones and that it was conclusively proven that she was killed... It seems clear to me that there was a great deal of evidence planted by police (and as you say, much deception during the trial) and the best explanation seems to me to be that the whole thing was faked in order to frame Steven and end the civil suit from his previous wrongful conviction.

crystal said...

Good morning! I've followed this blog for several years now. While watching this series I noticed something I'd like to ask your opinion of. Before her body was even found, Teresa's brother made a comment about mourning her. What could that indicate?

jessica whitaker said...

Or I didn't do this one just like I didn't do the other one... the rape of Penny ...I think people are over analyzing his simple speech. I would like to see what his statement was when he was sentenced for the rape of Penny

Austin Cowboy said...

There was a very good reason why Avery declined to take a seat in the witness stand and fight for his life- HE IS GUILTY ! He knows it and his lawyers know it. Any competent criminal lawyer knows how bad it looks for the accused to decline the chance to tell his side of the story. They also know a good prosecutor will EAT THEIR CLIENT ALIVE if he is guilty and attempts to sell his bs on the witness stand. Most would resign before they allowed a GUILTY client to take a seat in the witness stand.