Thursday, December 31, 2015

Happy New Year: 2015 in Review

What were the five most popular deception stories covered here in 2015?

2015 was an interesting year for news stories that were dissected here at the Statement Analysis blog, including those that brought some controversy, and those that highlighted the science of analysis.  

Regrettably, there are many cases of which I will never address for readers, as they all belong to the investigation and judicial departments.   I report 100% success rate "by resolution"; that is, each case produced something that confirmed the analysis to some measurable degree.  This includes confessions, admissions, failed polygraphs, arrests, plea bargains, closed cases, or final adjudication in court or via board commission.   The cases were all within the continental United States.   In most cases, the analysis guided the investigation, though in several, the analysis 'was' the investigation; that is, the analysis changed the course of the investigation.  In these cases, it was important that strong confirmation was realized, including admission.  These cases were such that the investigators disagreed to some degree, with the analysis, but over time, the analysis proved itself correct.  

Confidence in the science of analysis in each case  where analysis was opposed increased dramatically.  

2015 was the first full year where Hyatt Analysis Services was full time analysis and instruction company.  Prior to this, work done for others was limited by time constraints.  Even with this status, there was not  enough time to analyze  half of the requests received.  

Hopes for 2016 include expanding the company to hire on both part time and full time basis, 
conducting more seminars, (including UK), guest lecturing at Quantico, release of the book of Hailey Dunn's life and death,  finish the new "Statement Analysis and Profiling" book, and the completion of the Advanced Course, which is almost done with the lectures.  

The initial course Statement Analysis course  received excellent reviews, particularly from those who have had other courses and were not satisfied with introductory, elementary, or "101" analysis courses' limit or oversimplification and omission of information.  Many were left with basics, but without the tools to discern sexual abuse cases, mental illness and language, perseveration of past events, PTSD, as well as many of the deeper aspects of analysis including profiling and identifying anonymous authors.    

The successful completion of this course, including assignments, permits one to join an elite group of analysts in monthly, guided training.  

This has led to the establishment of monthly training of which confidential work is done and the results have been remarkable.  This week, alone, our training schedule was 'interrupted' by a shooting case in which an apparent self defense shooting death was analyzed, and quickly changed status to possible murder.   

The work in this group is deep.  It is challenging, exhausting, exhilarating, and rewarding. They test and try us, regularly, and push up deeper and deeper into the complexities of human nature and language.  Criminal psychology emerges naturally as the analysts know the allegation and the statement, with no case details revealed until the analysis is complete.  

The effect is powerful.  

The cases they solved were often complex and they invested exhausting hours into their product, and produced truth and accuracy.  

This has been so inspiring, in fact, that we are currently considering more formal work into cold or unsolved cases for law enforcement.  It is the unsolved cases that cause a stir, and require strong, dedicated leadership and thick-skinned investigators who do not fold under harsh criticism. 

This is because those cleared in the case are sometimes seen by Statement Analysis as the guilty, and the initial investigators who cleared the guilty are not always pleased by the finding.  Therefore, the report must be thorough, concise, and written in a way that will lead to re-opening of the case, and arrests.  The success experienced thus far has fueled more interest in this.  One problem is the solve rate of departments.  

Where should this work be targeted as a priority?

If you said, "in locales where the solve rate is very low", you would be thinking logically.  However, in the very places where solve rates are well below average, some have been this way year after year and they are not open to 'outside' assistance.  Where new leadership is in place is where we will focus our attention and efforts.  It is hard work, but it is work that brings justice and the team of analysts all have solid foundations and talent met with drive.  The potential for success is high.  

We also wish to expand to more corporate work as businesses see immediate results from implementation of lie detection in the interview process.  Although criminal work is rewarding, the losses to business are so deep, that not only does analysis help hire the best and brightest, but it saves more than money and time; it saves reputations.  It is no longer just weeding out thieves but now those who claim to be 'victimized' by a company, who seek money for their fraudulent pain and suffering that has become so popular that must be addressed and remedied.  

Culturally, 2015 continued its downward spiral where deception in media continued, but at, perhaps, a more dramatic clip than in 2014, specifically with Dhimmitude (the submissive posture)  and the criminal ideology of Islamic supremacy.  Main stream or corporate media was more blatant with its propaganda than anything I have read, including propaganda from World War I.

Also continuing throughout 2015 was the acceptance of the 'corporate victim status', another dangerous ideology that fuels loss and institutionalizes envy.  This appears to be continuing and because court cases are important to follow the trend of socialism became even more evident:  business is bad and the workers are victims.   Colleges reinforced this notion to young people who stood in buildings built by hard work and business while complaining of their feelings over imaginary wrongs committed by business.  These were the "delicate snowflakes" who, if you hire them, pose an unnecessary risk for filing complaints against you.  

This is critical for businesses in 2016 as Statement Analysis will spot the "social justice warrior" applying for a job who will, sooner rather than later, create the very event they seek to fight against, with a company caught in a "fake hate" public relations nightmare.  The payouts from companies across the country continued while those who employed analysis were able to successfully avoid all such fraudulent claims.  

There was a strong positive, however, in all of this, in that more Americans have become aware of the propaganda and deception, particularly in media's reporting, as well as in the political realm, and are relying on small, free-internet sources for news.  This includes citizen journalism for without such, as in Europe, citizens would not know the dangers on their streets until it is too late.  This is only a trickle of news, but it is growing.  Where Germany, for example, used the media to lie about "refugees", citizens with iPhones did a great service, forcing the BBC and others to finally admit that the "widow and orphans" were, in many cases, 90% young males, of fighting age, who were not fleeing war.  While Sweden became the rape capital of the West, Germany, little by little, failed to stem the tide of news and its citizens learned how epidemic rape of its women had become.  Germany's corporate media briefly acknowledged that it was not reporting rape, for example, because it did not want to "fuel xenophobic" and "right wing" partisans.  Thus, the media conspired to withhold critical information from the public to protect its political position.  

Regardless of one's political beliefs upon any issue, the study is in deception, including propaganda, and its need to persuade rather than report.  

2015 was also a year where "tolerance" finally became a foe to freedom of speech openly, as America has followed Europe in its departure from its once sacred principle of freedom of speech.  Europe, still years ahead, went from the two propaganda elements to silence criticism (immorality and phobia) to actually legislating against freedom of speech.  America silenced freedom of speech through fascism and even the imposition of sharia blasphemy laws, following the path of both Europe, and of early Nazi Germany.   The pushback of this has been mostly the free internet, which, not surprisingly, has been targeted.  Right now, one may lose his job for using the internet to criticize a government policy or ideology, but he is still able to post it.  Should this freedom be lost, dissension will have to take other routes to express itself.  

The cases covered in 2015 represent a wide variety of human language.  

What were the most popular cases in 2015 here at the Statement Analysis blog?

Up next:  The top five cases reviewed.  

What do you think the five most 'popular' (judging by page views) cases were this year?

Episode 5: The Last Person to See the Victim

Steven on phone: Now, there's a chance. Maybe the truth will come out. I want everybody to know I'm innocent. You know, that's all I'm asking for. 

 Kratz: Teresa Halbach had her whole life in front of her and the evidence is going to show... that on Halloween of 2005, that all ended. That ended in the hands of the defendant... Steven Avery. Who is this man? Virtually all of you knew something about Steven Avery before serving on this particular jury. Mr. Avery achieved some degree of notoriety back in 2003 when he was exonerated. And at the close of this case, I'm gonna point to every one of you potential jurors and say that has absolutely nothing to do with this case. When deciding who's accountable... for the death of 25-year-old Teresa Halbach, Mr. Avery's past and his past exoneration have nothing to do with this case. The State intends to prove to you that the defendant restrained... murdered and mutilated Teresa Halbach. The mutilation of this little girl... Excuse me, not this little girl, this young woman, absolutely occurred because this is what's left. Small, tiny pieces of bone fragment. Now, despite Mr. Avery's efforts to completely obliterate all these bones by burning, to incinerate these bones completely, this bone survived. It's Teresa Halbach's shin bone. It's Karen Halbach's daughter's tibia. Remembering the humanity of Teresa Halbach, remembering who she is, what she meant to these people, is an important part of this process. Ultimately, this process includes assigning accountability for the murder and the mutilation of an innocent 25-year-old young lady. And I'll ask at the conclusion of this case that you return verdicts of guilty. Thank you. Thank you, Judge.

 Judge Willis: Thank you, Mr. Kratz. 

Steven on phone: They wouldn't look at nobody else. They're paying all their attention to me. And they shouldn't be doing that. That's what they did before. 

In a long trial like this, openings are very important. Really, probably more important even than the closings. Because by the time they get to that point, um... it's gonna be a matter of arguing for a few of them probably. I think most of them will probably have already decided. So we want to get 'em early. Just get 'em thinking that there's another side to this they have not heard. All they've been hearing, for what, 15 months, is, you know, Teresa Halbach was burned. Bones were found on Steven Avery's property. Which is a horrible fact. But what they don't know is that there's evidence those bones were moved. And so... And neither does the media. So it's gonna be interesting to see the reaction when that little tidbit finally becomes public. The blood I'm more... a little bit more worried about than I was when I first discovered it and was very happy and you know. Because I don't trust the FBI at all and I think that they're gonna come up with some dishonest test that somehow claims that the blood in the vial is different than what was found at the scene. And that'll be a little bit harder to overcome. I'm not worried about the key at all. I like the key. I'm glad they're using it. [clears throat] It shows that if they would be willing to go to that length of planting a key, which I think is... the jurors are gonna get, then... the blood follows easily. It does. 

Strang: In 2004, Steven Avery filed a lawsuit seeking some recompense for the hole in his life. The time he had spent as an innocent man for the crimes that Gregory Allen committed. In October 2005, James Lenk and another ranking officer of the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department, Sergeant Andrew Colborn, both were pulled into the lawsuit, questioned about their own activity and conduct with respect to Mr. Avery's imprisonment. It's Thursday evening about 5:00, November three, when Mrs. Halbach reports Teresa missing. That very night, Calumet is calling the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department for a little bit of help. And who do we get? We get Sergeant Andrew Colborn. And he's told, "Look, two places we'd like to sort of check out and see if Teresa Halbach showed up on Monday: the Zipperer residence... and Steven Avery." Well, that's a name that rings a bell. You better believe. Less than three weeks, or about three weeks after his deposition. And it is interesting that of those two places that Sergeant Colborn is asked to check out and inquire after Teresa Halbach... he only goes to one. Goes to Steven Avery's home. Out of the blue, the same night, Lieutenant James Lenk calls Calumet about this missing person report. Let's be clear. It's in another county. It's not even Manitowoc County at all. And nobody has called for Lieutenant Lenk. Nobody's called looking for him. But the Chief Detective of Manitowoc County takes it upon himself that night to call Calumet and offer to get involved in the missing person investigation where one of the appointments that was to be kept was Steven Avery. November five, Saturday, Pam and Nikole Sturm find the Toyota they suspect, correctly as it turns out, is Teresa's. And folks, from that point forward, before the police say they've even opened the car, before they say they know of any blood of any sort, in or on the car, before anybody even knows whether this young woman has been hurt or killed... the focus is on Steven Avery. Hear it yourself. When Detective Jacobs was calling after the police have arrived at the Avery property, after Teresa's car has been found there. [recording of phone line ringing] woman: Good morning, Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department. Katie speaking. Jacobs: Katie, just rolled into the parking lot. Can you tell me, do we have a body or anything yet? Katie: I don't believe so. Jacobs: Do we have Steven Avery in custody, though? Katie: I have no idea. This is 30 minutes after they found the car. Indeed, they wouldn't find the first bone fragment for three days. "Do we have Steven Avery in custody, though?" Now, if you're thinking though that the evidence will show you that Manitowoc County bowed out because of the conflict of interest after it turned the investigation over to Calumet County... If you're thinking that, it's reasonable, but you're wrong. Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department stays very much involved in this investigation. The police didn't kill Teresa Halbach, obviously. They have that in common with Steven Avery. But they wanted to believe he did. And whoever did kill her or burned that body exploited that tunnel vision pretty skillfully. In the end, after the full and fair consideration of everything and everyone, the full and fair consideration that Steven Avery did not get from the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department... we're gonna ask you to send him home. We're gonna ask you to send him home again. We're gonna ask you to get it right this time. We're gonna ask you to set it right. 

Police   So Teresa 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. 

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

Avery:  She's in the truck. In the truck.

Police:   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. Mm-hm. I came back out. And then I was gonna walk over by Bobby... but then his vehicle was gone. 

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

Avery: Bobby's vehicle's gone. 

Mr. Dassey, do you know the defendant Steven Avery? 

Bobby: Yes, he's my uncle. 

Prosecutor: You have to speak up just a little bit, please. 

Bobby:   Yes, he's my uncle. 

Prosecutor:  And is he in the courtroom here at this time? 

Bobby:  Yes, he is. 

Prosecutor:  Would you point him out for the record? Tell the judge where he's seated? 

Bobby: He's right over there, to my right. 

Kratz: Mr. Dassey, do you know where your uncle lived? 

Bobby: Yes, he lived right next door to us. 

Kratz: Please tell the jury what we're looking at. 

Bobby: Well, basically this is my mom's house. Um... The red thing is Steven's trailer. 

Kratz: Now, Bobby, on October 31st, 2005, do you remember anything unusual that happened at about 2:30 that afternoon? 

Bobby:  A vehicle had drove up and started taking pictures of the van. 

Kratz:  Well, let's back up just a minute. What did you see? 

Bobby:  I seen a vehicle pull up in our driveway. 

Kratz:  And how do you know that it was about 2:30 in the afternoon? 

Bobby;  'Cause I was going hunting that night and that's the time I wanted to get out. 

Kratz:  All right. Tell the jury what you saw then.

Bobby:   I seen Teresa Halbach get out of the vehicle and start taking pictures. 

Kratz:  After seeing her taking any pictures, did you see her do anything? 

Bobby;  She started... Before I got in the shower, she actually started walking over to Steven's trailer. 

Kratz: When looking at exhibit number 61, could you point to the window that you looked out and watched things from? 

Bobby: It would be that window there. 

Kratz: The left-most window on the trailer, is that right?

 Bobby: Yes. 

Kratz:  About what time do you think that you left to go hunting? 

Bobby; Twenty to three. Quarter to three. 

Kratz:   Mr. Dassey, when you walked out to your vehicle to go bow hunting, did you notice if Teresa's vehicle was still in the driveway? 

Yes, it was. 

It was? 


Did you see Ms. Halbach? 


Did you see any signs of her at all? 


Now, Bobby, on the 3rd of November, a Thursday, I believe it is, do you recall having a conversation with your Uncle Steven regarding a body? 

Bobby:  Yes. 

Prosecutor Kratz:  Could you tell us what your Uncle Steven told you that day? 

Bobby:  Well, my buddy Mike was over too and he asked us... It sounded like he was joking, honestly. But he asked us if we wanted... He wanted us to help him get rid of the body

This sensational testimony today accounted for a dramatic response from the Defense. male reporter: Defense attorney Dean Strang said that... [overlapping dialogue] Well, Cammie, as Elizabeth said, Bobby Dassey's testimony and the mistrial issue took up quite a bit of time this morning. male reporter: The Defense made a motion for a mistrial. We have no written summary of an interview of Bobby Dassey in which that statement is recited. We do have a report of a contact with a Michael Osmundson. "Michael indicated he was aware Steven was one of the last people to see the missing girl and jokingly asked Steven if Steven had her, the missing girl, in a closet. At this point, Steven asked Michael if Michael wanted to quote 'help bury the body' closed quote. And they laughed about this together." 

Buting: This is not changing the theory at all. This fits perfectly to show that they have not followed up this investigative lead because this investigative lead points elsewhere than Mr. Avery. And here we are in the middle of the trial and it hasn't been investigated. The jury has a right to know that. All right, I'm... I guess having trouble seeing the apparent relevance of it at this stage of the trial. Let's, uh, bring the jurors back in. [indistinct chatter] Buting: The State wants to argue and in fact put out into the media as quickly as November 4th and maybe even November 3rd, that Steven Avery was the last person to see her, when they didn't know that, and they don't know that to this day. You know, there's more to come. You know, examples of one after another after another of decisions that were made in the investigative process, all of which went just towards Steven Avery and no one else. 

Steven on phone: They're always saying I'm the last person to have seen her. Now, how can I be the last one? I saw her leave. So I'm not the last one. Whoever did this is the last one

Fassbender: Want to tell us about that? 
Wiegert: Tell us about that. 

Tammy told me that. 

Tammy told you? 


She a friend of yours or something or...? 

Yeah, I know her. 

What did she tell you? 

That... she heard... She told me that she'd heard that a cop put it out there and planted evidence. 

Put what out there? 

That vehicle. 

And that's Teresa's vehicle?

 Yeah. So Tammy told you that somebody told her... 

Yeah. ...

that a cop put that vehicle, Teresa's vehicle, out on your property. 


Strang: One of the things road patrol officers frequently do is call in to dispatch and give the dispatcher the license plate number of a car they've stopped or a car that looks out of place for some reason. Correct? 

Yes, sir. 

And the dispatcher can get information about to whom a license plate is registered. 

Yes, sir.

 If the car is abandoned or there's nobody in the car, the registration tells you who the owner presumably is. 

Yes, sir. 

I'm gonna ask you to listen, if you would, to a short phone call. 

woman: Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department, this is Lynn. Colborn: Lynn. Hi, Andy. Colborn: Can you run Sam-William-Henry-582? 

Lynn: OK. It shows that she's a missing person. And it lists to Teresa Halbach. 

Colborn: OK. 

Lynn: OK, that's what you're looking for, Andy? 

Colborn: Ninety-nine Toyota? 

Lynn: Yep. Colborn: OK, thank you. 

Lynn: You're so welcome. 


Strang: OK. What you're asking the dispatch is to run a plate that's "Sam-William-Henry-582"? Did I hear that correctly? 

Yes, sir. Sam-William-Henry would be S-W-H-5-8-2? 


This license plate? 

Yes, sir. 

And the dispatcher tells you that the plate comes back to a missing person or woman. 

Yes, sir. 

Teresa Halbach. 

Yes, sir. 

And then you tell the dispatcher, "Oh, '99 Toyota?" 

No, I thought she told me that. 

Lynn: It shows that she's a missing person. And it lists to Teresa Halbach. 

Colborn: OK. 

OK, that's what you're looking for, Andy? 

Colborn: Ninety-nine Toyota? 

Lynn: Yep. 

Colborn: OK, thank you.

 Lynn: You're so welcome. Bye-bye.

 Were you looking at these plates when you called them in? 

No, sir. 

Do you have any recollection of making that phone call? 

Yeah, I'm guessing eleven-oh-three-oh-five. Probably after I received a phone call from Investigator Wiegert letting me know that there was a missing person. 

Investigator Wiegert, did he give you the license plate number for Teresa Halbach when he called you? 

You know, I just don't remember the exact content of our conversation then. 

But you think... He had to have given it to me because I wouldn't have had the number any other way. Well, you can understand how someone listening to that might think that you were calling in a license plate that you were looking at on the back end of a 1999 Toyota. 


 But there's no way you should've been looking at Teresa Halbach's license plate on November three on the back end of a 1999 Toyota. 

I shouldn't have been and I was not looking at the license plate. Because you're aware now that the first time that Toyota was reported found was two days later on November five. Yes, sir. [theme music plays]

Read more at:

Wednesday, December 30, 2015

"Making a Murderer": A Study in Propaganda

The documentary, "Making a Murderer" currently on Netflix and available at You Tube, is of great value to those of you interested in Statement Analysis, and discernment of deception.  

It is a great example of "emotion versus science" as its portrayal contains much truth, hard facts, missing information, deception, wrong doing, personal leakage, and "good guys" versus "bad guys" where the good guys have black hats and the bad guy has a white hat.  

It is a strong example of propaganda and is useful for those interested in discerning propaganda techniques.  

In short, it is one of the best documentaries I have seen to help those wishing to learn lie detection.  Almost everyone in the documentary is indicated for deception or wrong doing, from the sketch artist to the accused to the accusers, to the attorneys.  I found one defense attorney 

The truth?

A very bad man spent 18 years in prison for a specific crime he did not commit.  

He is hated by police. 

Upon release, he is a media darling, including the Innocence Project and is set to gain millions of dollars in suit. 

He is then charged with murder. 

Police not only show misconduct, but deception, under oath, including their new faulty memories. 

The prosecutor uses language that suggests sexual issues of a personal nature, who's voice inflection goes to high pitch while employing words associated with water.  "Swimming upstream" and "perspiration" and even his description of the rape, which we have no reliable linguistic connection due to both the editing of the documentary and the leading questions of investigators.  

I wrote that the nephew did not get an appropriate defense.  I believe he was involved, in some degree, with the assault, murder and disposing of the remains, but his defense attorney was both deceptive and grossly negligent.  

It is a treasure chest for Statement Analysis and if you do not think that emotions are powerful enough to influence decisions, look at 

a.  How many tens of thousands are signing petitions on behalf of Steven Avery
b.  How the Innocence Project did not want him as a client any longer. 

I watched the entire documentary, but did so with much typing and distraction, and did all analysis on the fly, while just listening.  After it, someone posted the transcripts, which is very useful.  

Here is my challenge to you:

Not using what I have mentioned already, how many elements of propaganda can you label?

How many forms of deception can you identify, specifically?

Use entire situations (such as editing) or simply using small words, such as "little girl", by the prosecutor, for commentary.  

Hint:  "Jodi" is a good example of documentary bias, or propaganda, in order to leave the viewer with a distinct impression that does not represent reality.  

Making A Murderer: Avery Confronted With Murder Allegation

Here is a good lesson about a Reliable Denial.  

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

It must be freely spoken and not parroting language.  


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyone can parrot.  

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

What about Steven Avery?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jodi: Do they? 

Steven: Yeah, the whole shit. 

Jodi: I'm scared. 

Steven: Yeah, me too. 

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

Jodi: Well, not scared, just worried. 

Steven: Yeah

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

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

So who do you think did something with her? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Fassbender: Work with us a little. 

Wiegert: Think of your family. 

I did not do it. 

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

 I did not do it. 

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

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

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

So you're telling me somebody planted the body? 

I didn't do it. 

Who did it? 

I don't know. 


I do not know. 

Steve, think of your family here for a second.

 I am thinking of my family! 

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


You're thinking of yourself. 

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

I didn't do this one

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

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

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

No, I didn't. I didn't do nothing. 

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

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

I'm not scared. 

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

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

No, I did not kill her

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

This wasn't a planned thing. 


Did you plan it? 


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

I did not do it. ...

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

I did not kill her. 

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

How does your DNA get inside of her truck? 

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


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

 Steve. Come back to reality here. 

I am. 

No, you're not.

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

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

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

I'm innocent

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

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