Monday, January 4, 2016

Making a Murderer: "Lock and Load!"

Andrew Colburn's Faulty memory not credible 

I continue to receive information from both comments and emails about this documentary and how powerful the emotions are.  Several recent emails highlighted for me just how persuasive this documentary is and how I had to "talk down" the emotion with analysis. 

Readers heard the parroted denial by Steven Avery and it took a bit for them to look at the many "holes" or "perfect opportunities" to deny freely the killing of Teresa that were not taken.  Given the documentary's propaganda technique, it is unlikely that a plain and reliable denial was edited out.  

Avery's no contest plea as a 20 year old was an insight into 2 elements that are strongly linked with sexual abuse, especially of children:

1.  Animal cruelty 
2.  Fire

The documentary quoted Avery without follow up.  this is a small example of persuasion. 

"We were fooling around with the cat and I don’t know, they were kind of negging it on and I tossed him over the fire and he lit up. I was young and stupid.”

Those of you familiar with Statement Analysis will recognize why I underlined some of the above words.  Those new:

Note who is to blame for what happened:

the cat. 

"he lit up" is not simply minimizing language, which is expected, and it not only avoids saying how he killed the cat, but it avoids saying that he killed the cat.  The cat, he, lit up.  It is to blame the cat. 

This is the linguistical patterns I have noted for many years in child molesters.  

Think that this is a leap?  

True, many guilty people use distancing language, and deceive by omission and some even blame the victim.  

Victim blaming in sexual crimes is very high, but there is something else for you to consider: 

animal cruelty and fire are linked to sexual abuse, sexual homicide and sexual abuse of children.  

He pled no contest of pouring oil and gasoline on the cat.  What he actually did is not known, but what one faces in court (including an allegation) is often less than what one did.  I have some ideas, but it is speculation based upon patterns, research, but also the language of the entire family  including Steven Avery's father, as well as Steven Avery's mother's silence in the presence of the father. 

When Avery was suspected in rape, they had very good reason to suspect him.  He did not commit the rape he went to prison for, but I suspect that in listening to his language, there was more to assuage his pain than just the potential for 36 million dollars.  

I continue to ask:

What bothers you about Steven Avery's conviction?

Those who pointed to his denial have grasped the analysis well, but even here, they are bothered by several things. 

1.  The police

The two investigators who testified were both awful.  At best, unprofessional, and at worst, perjurers.  

2.  The need to falsify and possibly plant evidence.  

In spite of the FBI testimony, many people want an explanation as to the tiny hole in the blood container.  Many debate the science attested to. 

Most, however, seem to grasp that police investigators did not conspire to frame Avery, but did things unnecessary and things that may be criminal.  

Let's consider the two investigators who testified and begin with a discussion of something that appears minute, but is not. 

Tom Fassbender under oath. 

One investigator, Fassbender,  was asked about focusing in upon only one suspect.  

He said, under oath,

"You don't lock and load on one suspect."

What does this statement suggest to you?  Explore this in some detail, please. 
Once explored, answer this:  
Why did this statement produce emotional responses?

"You don't just lock and load on the first suspect..."

What does this suggest to you?


Anonymous said...

Lock and Load sounds like no questions asked, ready to shoot to kill rather than investigate.

John Mc Gowan said...

"Lock and Load!"

Is a military saying. Is he ex military?

I think the emotion the phrase conjures up, (subliminal, at first) is that of soldiers going into battle, (Iraq, Afghanistan, and as far back as Vietnam ) losing their lives. Nobody wants to see coffins draped in their country's flag being unloaded from a military plane.

When i hear that saying, it reminds me of war.

Kate said...

Wow, what a great article/analysis Peter. I wrapped up this doc yesterday, I was left with feelings of confusion. I will say the "Lock and Load" confused me further. The arrogance that came across from many of the law officials was very strange and the level of corruption is concerning, they need to clean house and get rid of a few who are bad apples.

The Yooper talk was unbelievable. I've never heard so much yooping in my life. If a person can get past that, it makes for a great watch.

One side note, I found the video they chose to use of Teresa Halbach to be WEIRD. Why would they use that vid? And who makes a vid like that? Unless they know they are going to die? Seemed more like a suicidal type vid stating how she loves life and doesn't hate anyone. I don't know what that was all about but would love to hear other opinions on it.

Boston Lady said...

You just don't lock and load on your first suspect. This sounds like they expect more than one suspect. Otherwise wouldn't he have said "on your suspect"?

Lock and load is gun terminology but used as an analogy it means (to me) to put all of your eggs in one basket and focus only on the one suspect. I don't think the lock and load was meant literally.

maudes harold said...


This article helped delineate some things for me. It's a bear of a read and I've only gotten through it once so far.

Anonymous said...

"Lock and Load" - - could it suggest excessive use of force and/or an unethical approach towards a "getting" a suspect?

My Sew Imperfect Life said...

Lol It's stated in the negative, making it sensitive. Any further analysis of that statement would be biased, as I despise guns and our gun culture. Thanks for keeping on this story Peter. My husband who was a criminal justice major had to stop watching BC he was getting so mad at what he perceived to be the criminality of the law. I think Avery's guilt or innocence is the secondary story, how the law behaved is the 1st.

Anonymous said...

Is it the fact that he speaks in general terms using the "you" pronoun instead of speaking specifically about what he did (the "I" pronoun) in the case?

My Sew Imperfect Life said...

I have a question for anyone familiar with guns, hunting, gun ranges, etc. Is "lock and load" a common phrase for non-police/military? Thank you!
Ps. Not a robot! ;-D

My Sew Imperfect Life said...

Oh, goodness I forgot, he's stating what "you" did not do, not what he doesn't do. unable to say "I do not hone in on one suspect immediately." Btw, I have not been shutting of the S.A. part of my brain, its actually like pulling a veil from my eyes. I read an article abt one of my (top 3) singers about how he was robbed at gunpoint in NY. He owned that part, but not "held a gun to my head." I remember you saying violence or the threat of violence is a very personal violation. Unless he has Ptsd, he should own it, correct?
Ps Not a robot!

Tania Cadogan said...

I take it to mean you don't fixate on the first obvious suspect.
it makes the assumption the subject is perceived as guilty even before any investigation has taken place.

it is to take a prejudiced view that subject A is guilty regardless of whether they did it or not, to ignore anything that doesn't show the subject could not be guilty

Sus said...

"You don't lock and load on one suspect."

"You" is distancing, which doesn't mean he doesn't.
"Don't" do NOT is in the negative.
"Lock and load" conjures up the image of a gun site set on ONE person. I immediately thought of a sniper.
"Suspect" That he said suspect rather than person means he did have one suspect in his mind.

Emotionally, I think it makes one think he would just as soon shoot Steven Avery as deal with him.

GeekRad said...

I just read on Fox news that there is a petition to pardon Avery based on reactions to the Netflix series.

Sus said...

OT Peter,
Four years ago a mother from Aurora, Il, Amy Pitzen, took her six year old son out of school and went on a a several day vacation with him. She was found in a Rockford motel dead of suicide. She had suffered from depression and attempted suicide before.

She left a suicide note saying her son was safe with someone who would care for him. The boy has never been found.

I have seen bits and pieces of the suicide note. The grandmother read the whole thing on Nancy Grace so I can transcribe it. If I do, would you please give your opinion on whether Timmothy Pitzen is alive? I can't decide.

mom2many said...

I did a quick google because I was curious as to the origin of the phrase. Low and behold, I discovered this: It is a local Green Bay prisoner transport company. I can't find anywhere on the site that states how old the company is, but the url was first registered in 2005. Being local, it might have colored the personal dictionary of this officer. He may have had imprisonment/detention more on the mind with that phrase than what one would normally associate with it. What do you say, Peter?

mom2many said...

I hope Peter will look at that one, too. I have long decided Timmothy is dead because his mother said he is "safe". Has Peter ever discussed mother's of missing children using that word? I know that Andrea Yates used the same word after she killed her 5 children, and I have seen it crop up enough times in enough unsolved or children found, usually murdered by their mothers, to have an opinion on that word. The implication is they are permanently beyond harm, nothing more in this world can hurt them.

AJ Hadsell's mother used this word in the first media appeal after she went missing. The texts were 'off,' they were not from AJ, but she was 'safe.'

John Mc Gowan said...


That is very interesting, good call!

Anonymous said...

@ Geek Rad - scary that so many people are willing to release a violent murderer based on just the documentary. I say let him move in next door if you are so sure he is an innocent man.

Sus said...

Agreed with John, good call.

Re: Timmothy, He is likely dead. I think her Mormon beliefs might have come into play. She sees family members as being in heaven for him. It's so sad that I don't want it to be. I have only seen parts of the letter. I will transcribe the entire letter read by the grandmother on NG.

GeekRad said...

I agree anon at 1:38.

Anonymous said...

To anyone thinking Halbach committed suicide, torched her own corpse, and then moved her car....puh...leeze!

Anonymous said...

You don't lock and load on one suspect."

What does this statement suggest to you? Explore this in some detail, please.
Once explored, answer this:
Why did this statement produce emotional responses?

"You don't just lock and load on the first suspect..."

Was it "one suspect" or "the first suspect"?

I think they do lock onto one suspect when they have reason to think its is the right one. "On the first suspect " sounds like they didn't bother to look at evidence.

Sus said...

I immediately thought of a gun, but given the line of questioning and the show's direction, and then what Mom2many found, a quick arrest makes more sense.

Fassbender is saying (without knowing he is saying it) and the defense attorneys are showing...police certainly did arrest the first suspect. And very quickly.

Even if language has shown they got it right.

Rachael said...

It isn't the 'lock and load' that bothers me, it's the 'just'.

'You don't JUST lock and load on the first suspect, you also....'

Hang on to that lock for dear life? Lie to make sure he pays? Fabricate evidence? Conceal evidence that may prove your suspects innocence?

I haven't watched the documentary yet, but have some recollection of this case from when it occurred. I don't know what LE did or did not do that wasn't on the level, but that one 'Just' makes me think additional action was taken to maintain the sight on that first suspect.

Anonymous said...

Lock and load is a military term. It signifies to the troops that you should make sure your weapons have a round chambered as you will be using them shortly.

Rachael said...

Oh wait, I see it is quoted with and without the 'just' in the main article.

I don't know which one is what he said, but without the 'just' my prior comment is moot :)

Anonymous said...

What about the young girl that testified? Any thoughts on why she said she knew info but then later recanted? All of their facebook pages are open. I can see that she is being harassed but also standing by Avery.

Anonymous said...

I thought it meant the target has been sited and whatever is being fired at them is ready to go.

maudes harold said...

I don't have Netflix and have only seen the 1 part released on Youtube (thanks Juliet for the link!)

Sheriff Hermann points out to video manipulation/editing in this article:

“In several areas throughout the film, you can see where they cut the tape and manipulated things," he said. "One place real evident is one of the interviews with Steven Avery in episode 5 — if you watch one video, it jumps from 3:20 to 3:21, then to 3:17, then to 3:22 and then to 3:18.”

Is this noticeable from the show?

AnonMaine said...

I watched this documentary over the past several days and it prompted me to search for trial and statement transcripts. I just find the entire thing baffling. How on earth is it possible that her DNA or blood wasn't found on anything? I mean, what kind of cleanup would be necessary to get the bed, floors, headboard, handcuffs, leg shackles, cement floor, all the junk in that garage, etc., free of DNA, blood, fibers, hairs, saliva, semen, vaginal fluids, tears, sweat, you name it. How could Teresa's own DNA not be found on her keys? I cut my fingertip the other day and I bled EVERYWHERE. I don't even think I could safely say my finger wound wouldn't have left traces all the way from my kitchen to my living room and into the bathroom. And I'm not saying this in support of either Avery or Dassey. I'm just baffled at the lack of evidence. Maybe there was more than I realize, though, as I'm still reading the Dassey trial transcripts.

Tania Cadogan said...

Forensics look at what is there that shouldn't be and also what isn't there that should be.

If the expected is not found such as hairs, DNA etc where they would and should be found such as bathroom, bedroom, kitchen etc, then it can be an indication that a thorough clean up has been done.

As well as cleaning up anything incriminating, they cleaned too well and the expected evidence that a person leaves around their house is missing.

When you go anywhere you leave a piece of you behind and take a piece of the location etc away with you.

John Mc Gowan said...

maudes harold said...

"I don't have Netflix and have only seen the 1 part released on Youtube"

I'm the same. I have just found this though.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the poster who said "You" and "just" and "suspect" are interesting language. That sentence really doesn't say anything. It attempts to imply they weren't gunning for SA, but it doesn't really *say* they weren't.

I found this article on evidence against Avery that the documentary didn't include and decided to post it because, EW.

Jen (not-a-bot)

sha said...

The worst thing is how set-up Avery was the first time. If Law Enforcement can act so badly one time, why not another? When Lenk called in that check on the RAV's license is when I think Lenk found the RAV. Maybe they thought they were doing the "right thing" and making damn sure Avery stayed in jail "this time".
Sadly, when the people that are supposed to protect us and find the truth are a bunch of liars and criminals we're left to suspect they set Avery up again.
I don't put too much weight into what jailhouse snitches say, nor into statements coerced by the police. That Ken Kranz was ridiculous and his press conferences looked like a low budget over-dramatic movie of the week excerpt rather than a real statement to real press. All his cases should be reviewed.
I have a very hard time believing that an innocent person would sit in jail and plan to commit a real crime when s/he finally could prove their innocence and get out of jail.

John Mc Gowan said...

I've only watched 3 episodes and SA has had numerous opportunities to issue an RD in his alleged involvement the murder, at that time. First in the interrogation, although it is heavily edited and he may have. Second, when he is being taking into the jail, and the reporter asks him if he has anything to say. He responds, i'm innocent. That is true as he hasn't been convicted. Yet it is a prime opportunity to give an RD

The amount of phone calls he takes also, not once does he issue an RD. This, as we are aware, should come in the "free editing stage" and not parroted or reflective language, but his own words.

I'll watch ep 4 tomorrow, I'm getting tired now. Lol

Anonymous said...

fyi, for those who don't have netflix, netflix offers a free month trial period which is more than enough time to watch the series.

Trigger said...

What bothers me is how unprofessional the police acted. Their lack of integrity was exposed when they got caught setting up Avery for a crime he didn't commit.

Avery is deceptive and cunning. He loves the power it gives him over other people.

What he did to his learning disabled nephew by offering up his victim and including him in the murder of Theresa was horrible.

When the detective tried to get him to consider his families' feelings of guilt and shame, he was unmoved.

Avery has shown no remorse for anything. His nephew did have some remorse, but his mother, Barb, appears to have helped eliminate those thoughts and feelings in her semi-retarded son.

The young female cousin seemed to be under a lot of pressure to recant on the witness stand, to what she knew about the rape and murder of Theresa.

The whole family lies. Not surprising.

Trigger said...

"You don't lock and load on one suspect"

This is a deceptive statement.

The pronoun "I" is not used.

It is present tense.

"lock and load on one suspect" sounds odd to me.

Trigger said...

"You don't just lock and load on the first suspect..."

I got that statement out wrong but it is still deceptive.

"on the first suspect..." tells us that Avery was first suspect that the police considered as perp.

elf said...

You don't lock and load on one suspect.
He didn't say 'i' which is distancing.
Don't - anything said in the negative is sensitive.
Lock and load- ready to fire a gun? Confronting something dangerous?
One suspect- there is only one suspect
'You don't just lock and load on the first suspect "
The word just is used to compare. Again with the distancing word 'you' versus saying 'i' .
the first suspect- meaning the first one on a list of suspects? If there's a first, there should be a second, third, and so on.

elf said...

Were these two different statements made by one person? If so, then the repetition of the phrase 'lock and load ' would be sensitive. Right? Which makes sense if the subject is a cop. His firearm is a part of his everyday life. If you're locked and loaded you're ready.

John Mc Gowan said...

OT Update:

Parents of Crystal Rogers file motion to keep boyfriend from leaving state
Man recently named as suspect in woman's disappearance

The parents of Crystal Rogers worry her boyfriend will flee the state with their grandson.

That is why Tommy and Sherry Ballard filed a motion asking a judge to order Brooks Houck to stay in Kentucky.

Houck was recently named a suspect in Rogers' disappearance but as of right now, he still has custody of the pair's 3-year-old son.

The Ballards told WLKY they have worried for some time about their youngest grandson.

But in court documents, they outline specific concerns that the boy's father could leave Kentucky with him.

"It kind of just makes us leery so we are trying to make it to where he cannot leave town," said Sherry Ballard.

Since Rogers' disappearance in early July, her mother has focused on two things.

She wants to find out what happened to her daughter and continue looking after Rogers' five children.

The four oldest children live with the Ballards. But the youngest is with his father Houck.

"We want to see that baby and if he is here, it is a little bit easier for us to do that," said Ballard.

Houck's brother was fired from the Bardstown Police Department and an employee of Houck's was indicted.

In a motion, the Ballards' attorney asserts those events and the fact that Houck "has been attempting to sell all of his real estate holdings below market value" make it appear that he is "preparing to flee with the child."

It is a chance Sherry Ballard does not want to take.

"There is a slight risk that they are scared that Brooks may try to leave town. We are trying to avoid that where he has to stay here and not leave town at all," said Ballard.

The Ballards are also seeking more time with their grandson.

Right now, they visit him every other Saturday. But they said his siblings can't see him.

"I keep telling them it is coming. It is coming. It is coming and it keeps getting, you know, they are just kind of giving up on seeing him. They are like are we ever going to get to see him or not," said Ballard.

A judge will hear the newest motion on Wednesday.

WLKY reached out to Brooks Houck's attorney on Monday but he did not want to comment at this time.

In October, the Nelson County sheriff announced that Rogers is presumed dead.

Anonymous said...

Tania - there's no way possible they cleaned that scene well enough to remove any piece of evidence. Even Teresa's key, so conveniently "found" by the Manitowac cop that wasn't supposed to be there, didn't have anyone else's DNA on it but Steven Avery's - not even Teresa's own!!!

Supposedly there was rape by two men, stabbing in the abdomen and throat, gunshots to the head, AND dismemberment prior to burning, and NO DNA of Teresa's found in the house or the garage.

Anonymous said...

Why lock and load on ANY suspect? Is that the job of the police?

Hey Jude said...

What bothers me about Avery's conviction is the lack of forensic evidence - no trace of Teresa in his house, no bloodied mattress, nothing to uphold any of Brendan's accounts. I have focussed on Brendan, though - when I have more time, I will take more of a look at Steven. I'm pleased not to have signed any petition in support of them, at least (so far). I think Brendan should be released - he was so young - I don't think any minor should be tried as an adult or imprisoned for so long.

Anonymous said...

What did they do prior to forensic science?

1)Avery called her to come to the salvage yard. Twice with *67 and once with his number after 4:30.
2)She was seen there by others.
3)Her camera and other things found in burn barrel at salvage yard.
4)Her vehicle found at salvage yard with plates removed. It was covered with brush, parts, plywood
5)SA was burning brush in his bonfire.
6)Some bones were found in bonfire pit.
7)A bus driver saw her there.
8)She had told her employer the last time she was there-Oct. 10th-that he scared her and she wouldn't go back. (He knew it;the reason for the call blocking)

Anytime a New Yorker or film student wants to help "marginalized" peoples, rest assured it's about them.

Anonymous said...

"Exclusive Announcement" from makers of Making a Murderer, coming up on Today Show right now.

Anonymous said...

Short interview, with both women, the makers of Making a Murderer.

"Laura and Moira" or something. Sitting on couch on Today Show set with Today Show cast. One of the women said (paraphrase) "We have been contacted by one of the jurors who convicted Steven Avery of murder, and she told us she believes that Steven Avery was not proven guilty, that he was framed by law enforcement, and that he deserves a new trial."

Laura & Moira said they asked the juror "Why did you vote that he was guilty?", and that the juror replied "I feared for my personal safety."

Matt Lauer asked Laura & Moira, "What do you think about the public response to your series?"

Laura & Moira: "It's more than we ever could have dreamed of."

That was pretty much it. Matt Lauer said they'd be talking to the 2 filmmakers again later on in the show, and they cut to a commercial.

Anonymous said...

Prosecutor's 9 reasons Avery is guilty.

Anonymous said...

How many of those signing the petitions to let a stalker,murderer, and corpse mutilator out of prison to go on to rape and murder more women are from this country? How many are sadists? How many are homosexual? How many want to be on the Nancy Grace show? How many are of legal age? How many have ever done anything other than press buttons on the remote control and use a keyboard?

240,000 signatures? Hmpft!

Sus said...

The public may be taking up Steven Avery's cause since watching a bias deceptive show, but the Innocence Project refused.

To my thinking, it's great to question things. But not based on a biased, propaganda-filled show.

The show did not present both sides as the jury saw. It presented the defense. Moreover, it presented pieces the defense was not allowed in court because it was too outlandish.

I do not recall for certain about the blood evidence and prints, but I don't believe the prosecution even tried to say Teresa was killed in the bedroom. The only print (one single fingerprint) found in Steven Avery's bedroom was his. That speak of a clean up. The state believes Teresa was killed in the garage or at the pit, as Brenden said in his first statement.

rob said...

OFF topic:

Peter, more of the same. But even though the attackers were said to be Arab men, let's don't assume anything bad about them or immigrants.
How would this country react to the same event? or Canada?

Anonymous said...

OT - DeOrr Kunz Jr. UPDATE

Jessica Mitchell (mom) makes new statements regarding DeOrr...

"Happy Birthday baby DeOrr mommy and day love and miss you dearly," Jessica Mitchell said in a written statement.

"Our family is in mourning and we ask the community for prayers for our son DeOrr Jay Kunz Jr. We ask the community to pray for answers as the police and private investigators do their jobs. We ask the community to pray for strength as the answers begin to come in. We would like to thank each of you for your prayers and support during this horrific time," Mitchell said in a written statement.



Anonymous said...


New comments/info about Haley Dunn...

“I am missing out a lot on having a teenage daughter and getting to do so many things with her,” Hailey's mom, Billie Dunn, said. “I know what I am missing out on, I see it all the time when I am out and about, and that was taken from us.”

“I thought it would be quick,” Billie said. “I thought the remains were found, that there would be an arrest and we would get the remains back, and that’s not what happened.”

“I know I’ll get closure one day, and I know that there is going to be an arrest,” Dunn said. “I’m more confident in that now then I have been. And I see that happening. I know it could be a couple more months, maybe a little bit longer, but I know it’s going to happen.”

“Christmas is really hard,” Billie said. “Hailey loved decorating and getting the rest of us in the Christmas spirit. So, Christmas is always really tough for me.”



Anonymous said...

More on Hailey Dunn...

Billie Dunn, Hailey's mother, spoke to BigCountryHomepage after her daughter's case was featured, saying, "I think it was a good idea to get the public's interest again. It's been almost five years. They need to get Hailey. . . or make sure Hailey's face is still being circulated and the story is still being circulated."



Statement Analysis Blog said...

Nothing about what Hailey is missing out on?

Thanks, KC. I had seen it earlier as more than a few people were bothered by the comments.


Anonymous said...

"I am missing out..." "...that was taken from US"


rob said...

Maybe the german public has had enough?

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Mom2many, Agreed with John, good call. Re: Timmothy, He is likely dead. I think her Mormon beliefs might have come into play. She sees family members as being in heaven for him. It's so sad that I don't want it to be. I have only seen parts of the letter. I will transcribe the entire letter read by the grandmother on NG. on Making a Murderer: "Lock and Load!"

Is the transcript available?


This is shocking. This is the most dangerous example of why societies that are not free end up in destruction.

How many women were raped, in one city, by this mob of over 1,000?

Since they are now admitting over 1,000, with the initial hiding of this, how high is the real number?
What about other cities?

How many "carbecues" were in Paris sububarb's, on New Years Eve??

The German population is not armed and their wives and daughters are being raped in epidemic numbers but the government and media have conspired, no different than in the 1930's, to keep the public in the dark .



Statement Analysis Blog said...

"lock and load"

consider the venue in which the investigator used this phrase.


rob said...

Peter, in this country, it is common for a female, alone, to travel across country. In cars, on planes or trains. Can you imagine if this became a problem or concern here?
Think of all the females out running, going shopping, picking up kids from school, taking them to the park.
Better go out and get a CWP or at least a gun, before Obama gets done with his pen. Bet all the stores are selling out again, guns and ammo.
It's good for the industry.

Shannon In CA said...

Brendan also said she had her throat cut in the bedroom. There's no way that kind of mess could be cleaned by someone of avery's intelligence. I doubt any of us here could successfully do that clean up. Brendan's statements were all over the place and therefore not reliable. His trial, at the very least, was a joke.

Shannon In CA said...

That's insane. If that's true, he might actually get a new trial. Betcha she never actually comes forward though.

Sus said...

Here is the account of Timmothy Pitzen. His mother left one note at her suicide, and mailed two letters. One to her mother and one to a friend. I will post the letter to her mother in the next comment.

Thank you!

rjb said...

My husband is a police officer, and has testified numerous times in court. He hasn't watched the MaM series, but I asked his opinion of Fassbender's "lock and load" comment. He said that it was an ill-chosen phrase, and in his opinion an unprofessional way to express the concept of what is commonly known as "tunnel vision." "I can see someone saying 'lock and load' to another officer," my husband said, "but I would never use that phrase in court."

When I initially watched the episode with this testimony, the use of "lock and load" caught my attention. It seemed an odd phrase to use, but I assumed that he was trying to communicate the idea of not getting caught up in tunnel vision. Having thought about it in more depth, it seems to me that this phrase suggests a degree of defensiveness from the police department against Avery. He's made them look bad once, they can't afford to screw things up this time, and are therefore metaphorically taking up arms both in their own defense and to ensure his defeat.

I do have a tendency to overthink things, though. 😀

mom2many said...

What I have been pondering (and done a little Googling about without result) is the culture in Wisconsin that would use the phrase, "Lock & Load," for a transport service founded by former law enforcement. And likewise, that it could be casually used in court that way.

This speaks to a wider cultural context that is intimidating and scary, particularly given I am a resident here.

Sus said...

Letter from Amy Pitzen to her mother...

I know you are hurt and frustrated and I wish I had something better to say than I love you. But I don't. I've never really felt that I belonged here. I've tried very hard to fit in, to be happy, to be good to those around me, but somehow I've always felt apart from everything. Tim helped me with that for a while and maybe if Jim and I had been better I would have been okay, but everything fell apart and this time there were just too many pieces for me to pick up again. I can't take the chance of Jim hurting Tim because of my choices. So I've taken him somewhere safe. He will be well cared for and he says that he loves you. Please know that there is nothing you could have said or done that could have changed my mind. I'm sorry for the hurt and difficulties I know you're going to face. I just hope you will be able to forgive me one day. Please let Brian, Kathy, Natalie, Adam, Cara, Sydney, and Phoebe know that I do love them and it was just time for me to say goodbye.
I love you mom.

Amy's mother read this aloud so I don't know how it was capitalized, paragraphed, bolded, puncuated.

In the note found beside Amy she states that Timmothy will never be found.

Sus said...

He said that in his last interview. The interview which was not allowed at trial.

Anonymous said...

Heyyyy Peter :)


All shows on website FREE!!! even Orange Is The New Black!(having an AdBlocker is helpful) ;)


Anonymous said...

Everyone's following Peter on twitter,right? ;)

Peter Hyatt @PeterFHyatt

evrli~(AKA @Matlock717)

Anonymous said...

Brendan Dassey's confessions are interesting.
It seems there aren't a lot of indications of deception linguistically in his (full) statements.
(page 4-5 has full sentences from him)
These interrogations are on youtube as well.

Anonymous said...

800 cars torched in Paris, Peter. 800! Wow!

...I'm on my way to France," said the masked man through the keyhole.
It's up to you now to make the world safe for others.

Anonymous said...


Very interesting...

Brendan Dassey...


Unknown said...

The "You don't just Lock and Load on one suspect" phrase is problematic for several reasons; It's a slang term which is unprofessional at best, it's an unnecessary descriptive, the tense is wrong "you' instead of "I' or "we" and it's not a straightforward answer, it's more of an observation on this is what "people should do" and in my opinion is more of an unintentional confession of what they really did, which was focus entirely on Steven Avery with extreme prejudice.

ima.grandma said...

"But here is what Avery, 53, does have: “Making a Murderer,” a 10-episode Netflix documentary series that raises questions about the circumstances surrounding his arrest and conviction. And with it, a collection of scenes, documents and theories that present an image of innocence that Avery never really enjoyed as a free man."

" image of innocence that Avery never really enjoyed as a free man."

An insightful choice of  words. Perhaps a prediction if the documentary closes out with the release of Avery. Maybe we"ll see a part two.

GeekRad said...

Billie just won't stop the game will she?

As to Avery- I just listened to a telephone interview with Nancy Grace. She covered the story and said, among other things, Avery's sweat was found inside the engine of the car, which had a switched-out hood. She is not buying his innocence and hopes he doesn't get a pardon. She says by law that is up to the Governor, but every single president does pardons and she is concerned about lame duck presidential pardons. You can hear it on the CNN news website. And no doubt tonight on her show.

Anonymous said...

I agree. I think Avery is super guilty.

Anonymous said...

evidence not shown in the doc:

Here is his email to us, in its entirety. It begins with the Calumet County district attorney responding to our question about whether he believed the docu-series left out any evidence:

Examples for you to consider:
1. Avery’s past incident with a cat was not “goofing around”. He soaked his cat in gasoline or oil, and put it on a fire to watch it suffer.
2. Avery targeted Teresa. On Oct 31 (8:12 am) he called AutoTrader magazine and asked them to send “that same girl who was here last time.” On Oct 10, Teresa had been to the Avery property when Steve answered the door just wearing a towel. She said she would not go back because she was scared of him (obviously). Avery used a fake name and fake # (his sister’s) giving those to the AutoTrader receptionist, to trick Teresa into coming.
3. Teresa’s phone, camera and PDA were found 20 ft from Avery’s door, burned in his barrel. Why did the documentary not tell the viewers the contents of her purse were in his burn barrel, just north of the front door of his trailer?
Also Read: 'Making a Murderer' Pardon Petition Draws Signers From 144 Countries

Anonymous said...

4. While in prison, Avery told another inmate of his intent to build a “torture chamber” so he could rape, torture and kill young women when he was released. He even drew a diagram. Another inmate was told by Avery that the way to get rid of a body is to “burn it”…heat destroys DNA.
5. The victim’s bones in the firepit were “intertwined” with the steel belts, left over from the car tires Avery threw on the fire to burn, as described by Dassey. That WAS where her bones were burned! Suggesting that some human bones found elsewhere (never identified as Teresa’s) were from this murder was NEVER established.
6. Also found in the fire pit was Teresa’s tooth (ID’d through dental records), a rivet from the “Daisy Fuentes” jeans she was wearing that day, and the tools used by Avery to chop up her bones during the fire.
Also Read: 'Making a Murderer' Filmmakers Fire Back at Prosecutor: 'He's Not Entitled to His Own Facts'

Anonymous said...

7. Phone records show 3 calls from Avery to Teresa’s cell phone on Oct 31. One at 2:24, and one at 2:35–both calls Avery uses the *67 feature so Teresa doesn’t know it him…both placed before she arrives. Then one last call at 4:35 pm, without the *67 feature. Avery first believes he can simply say she never showed up (his original defense), so tries to establish the alibi call after she’s already been there, hence the 4:35 call. She will never answer of course, so he doesn’t need the *67 feature for that last call.
8. Avery’s DNA (not blood) was on the victim’s hood latch (under her hood in her hidden SUV). The SUV was at the crime lab since 11/5…how did his DNA get under the hood if Avery never touched her car? Do the cops have a vial of Avery’s sweat to “plant” under the hood?
9. Ballistics said the bullet found in the garage was fired by Avery’s rifle, which was in a police evidence locker since 11/6…if the cops planted the bullet, how did they get one fired from HIS gun? This rifle, hanging over Aver’s bed, is the source of the bullet found in the garage, with Teresa’s DNA on it. The bullet had to be fired BEFORE 11/5—did the cops borrow his gun, fire a bullet, recover the bullet before planting the SUV, then hang on to the bullet for 4 months in case they need to plant it 4 months later???
Also Read: 'Making a Murderer': 5 Theories for Steven Avery's Innocence

There is more of course. But I’m not a DA anymore. I have no duty to show what nonsense the “planting” defense is, or why the documentary makers didn’t provide these uncontested facts to the audience. You see, these facts are inconsistent with the claim that these men were framed—you don’t want to muddy up a perfectly good conspiracy movie with what actually happened, and certainly not provide the audience with the EVIDENCE the jury considered to reject that claim.
Finally, I engaged in deplorable behavior, sending suggestive text messages to a crime victim in Oct 2009. I reported myself to the OLR. My law license was thereafter suspended for 4 months. I have withstood a boat-load of other consequences as a result of that behavior, including loss of my prosecution career. However, I’ve enjoyed sobriety from prescription drug use for over 5 years now, and refuse to be defined by that dark time of my life. All of this occurred years after the Avery case was concluded…I’m unclear why the defense-created documentary chose to include this unpleasantness in this movie, especially if the filmmakers had no agenda to cast me as a villain. I am not a victim in that whole texting scandal—then again, it’s exceedingly unfair to use that to characterize me as morally unfit.
To identify Lt. Lenk, Sgt. Colburn and myself as being “responsible” for the framing and knowing false murder conviction of Steven Avery is irresponsible, and inconsistent with a consideration of all the evidence presented. Netflix should either provide an opportunity for rebuttal, or alert the viewers that this series was produced by and FOR the defense of Steven Avery, and contains only the opinion and theory of the defense team.
Thanks for your consideration.

John Mc Gowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Skeptical said...

It sounds like a classic case of "the gentleman doth protest too much". The police, in spite of protesting the opposite, did concentrate their investigation on Avery to the exclusion of all others.

klv said...

Regardless of whether he's guilty or innocent, (ok, that's my imbedded opinion, yes) HE DID NOT RECEIVE A FAIR TRIAL.

Innocent until PROVEN guilty, that's our system based on a little thing called the Magna Carte.

The police "helping things along" should not be tolerated! Doesn't it make our whole justice system moot??


GeekRad said...

Anon for her DA and prosecutor, please stay with us, we will, I most certainly will, value your experience and input. And congratulations on your sobriety. This place will give you a wonderful place to use your skills and experience. You will love this place. If you have been here before I want to say, I don't know who you are but I really look forward to your input with your experience.

klv said...

In response to Lock and Load (sorry, I get a little upset & distracted by what I see as the MAIN point of the documentary): He says "You", not the personal, owning "I".

I think he was quite aware of the blunders made by the prosecution and subconsciously wanted to distance himself.

It may well have been the editing but I got the same impression about his reactions several times during others testimony.

Trigger said...


According to the bias of the producers it appears that Steven Avery was unfairly tried in a court of law.

I would have to read the full transcripts of the trial before I made a statement like that.

Steven Avery is guilty... with or without the biased "documentary" that is intended to garner favor (and probably money) for the people who produced this program.

Theresa was kidnapped, raped, tortured, and murdered. She was on company time when it happened!

Who goes to a job site expecting something like that to happen? Talk about unfair!!!!!!

ima.grandma said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
klv said...

Trigger, I have read all the transcripts. I also believe Avery is PROBABLY guilty. (Dassey's guilt is a bit murkier to me, though).

I agree what happened to Teresa is unfair. Whether it happened o company time or not. It's a horror.

Although - and I say this with respect - there's no proof that she was raped or even the exact manner of her death, other than Dasseys somewhat questionable description(s).

If you were an unpopular person in your community, for WHATEVER reason, well, does an unpopular person deserve less fair a trial?

What does that say to a system based on the presumption of innocence?

Anonymous said...

Prove they were unpopular, please. They owned an auto salvage in a county with farmers, blue collar workers in a town with a population of around 12,000.

Sounds like a "marginalized seeker's" story.

klv said...

Look, here's MY confession: I'm on the Aspie scale and I find comfort in finding facts to determine gray areas.

Justice is a great comfort.

Justice should serve as a higher ideal.

I don't see that here.

Avery is probably where he belongs. Facts dont convince me that he got there fairly. That could be me, if I alienated the right people (even though I'd never hurt any person or even an animal!)

Brendan deserves a new trial in order to determine what he did or didn't do. Cooersive techniques were used initially.

Trigger, I love your insight, intellect, and posts here and hope you can understand that I agree what happened to Teresa (and her loved ones) was a horrible tragic obscenity.

Anonymous said...

Determine IQ by what?

Bet these dudes can locate a fuel pump, bumper, fender, fuse box, or door mechanism on any vehicle in no time at all.Most likely know more about it than the dealership,too. Learned from doing...just like DB and his preachin'.

BTW, his brother was arrested for photographing others-even children as young as three-naked in the bathroom in 2012.

klv said...

Look, here's MY confession: I'm on the Aspie scale and I find comfort in finding facts to determine gray areas.

Justice is a great comfort.

Justice should serve as a higher ideal.

I don't see that here.

Avery is probably where he belongs. Facts dont convince me that he got there fairly. That could be me, if I alienated the right people (even though I'd never hurt any person or even an animal!)

Brendan deserves a new trial in order to determine what he did or didn't do. Cooersive techniques were used initially.

Trigger, I love your insight, intellect, and posts here and hope you can understand that I agree what happened to Teresa (and her loved ones) was a horrible tragic obscenity.

Sus said...

Can you name something(s) in particular that you believe kept Steven Avery from a fair trial? I'm not seeing it.

I agree with the prosecutor on this one. The series basically just showed the defense strategy, which was rejected in court. That strategy was that Avery was framed. It's all they could use since the evidence was overwhelming toward Avery's guilt. It's called a Hail Mary. I bet those attorneys are shocked it's working all these years later.

Trigger said...

I don't believe that the Avery family were unpopular in their community either.

Small towns seem to accommodate intrigue and other things that distract them from ordinary life.

Steven Avery has filled those shoes in his town. The controversy is ongoing. He will always be the man who is "innocent" because of police pressure and public sympathy.

The facts surrounding Theresa's demise and a jury's verdict say something else about Steven Avery.

lynda said...

Lock and Load to me means you are ready to shoot to kill. You're prepared. The context of a police officer saying it, in a court of law, would mean to me that he is implying that "you" meaning a PO, does not just focus on one person and stay there, looking at no one else. That it would be stupid to "box in" on one person which IS a problem in LE. They lock in on someone they like for the crime and then manipulate theories, evidence, etc. to "fit" what they believe about who did it. Even to the extreme of ridiculously improbably theories or planting evidence. Once a cop locks and loads on someone, that cop will "take it to the mattresses" to prove what they believe.

Sus said...

Further, I see that you say you want facts "to determine gray areas." I get that. That's what investigations and trials are about. Well, trials are supposed to be about that, but we all know only certain evidence is allowed.

There is certain irrefutable evidence in this case. That is that Teresa's bones were intertwined in tire rims in a burn pit in Steven Avery's yard. A fire which Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey tended.

Even if the state couldn't prove where and how Teresa was killed, they know who had reason to get rid of her body. Critical thinking tells us why.

Jenny said...


mom2many said...

Thanks to those who posted links to transcripts. I was able to find the section where Brendan was talking to his mother, and admits to involvement:
What do you mean?
Like, if his story's, like, different, like I never did nothing or something.
Did you? Huh?
Not really.

Read more at:

I think every parent knows when you ask a child if they did something, and they respond, "not really," what that means.

Trigger said...

"they know who had reason to get rid of her body."

Thank you, Sus

A little critical thinking:

If Steven and Brendan were not responsible for her death then why would they destroy or hide critical evidence and tend the fire where Theresa's remains were found?

My best guess is....if they called 911 to report a woman's body in their salvage yard... they would be framed for her murder.

"Framed by the police, again." A run of bad luck for a guy who did nothing wrong.

Trigger said...

All the "cover up" behavior is the biggest indicator of guilt for Steven and Brendan.

That Steven invited Brendan, his semi-retarded nephew, into his despicable acts in an effort to spread the guilt, is unthinkable.

I remember hearing Barb, Brendan's mother, say to him that Theresa would be alive today if Brendan had done things differently.

She told him that he would have been a hero instead of being in jail and accused of her murder.

Barb believed the story that Brendan told the police.

klv said...

How is it the key didn't have Teresa's DNA on it?

Why is Colburn so hinky?

Are you saying there is no chance LE exceeded their authority both in the scene and during testimony?

Do you believe LE formed their theory of how the crime occurred before Brendan's description of the homicide?

klv said...

As far as Avery being popular in his community vs unpopular:

He was certainly unpopular with law enforcement.

Anonymous said...

Tom Fassbender under oath.
One investigator, Fassbender, was asked about focusing in upon only one suspect.
He said, under oath,
"You don't lock and load on one suspect."
What does this statement suggest to you? Explore this in some detail, please.
Once explored, answer this:
Why did this statement produce emotional responses?
"You don't just lock and load on the first suspect..."
What does this suggest to you?

As much as I want to be objective, I know my perception of this statement is influenced by all I have read and seen. I don't hear it as a statement in isolation but I am trying, as much as possible, to answer what Peter asked--apart from unwarranted bias--while also trying to give proper context. When I think of people using the phrase "you don't", I think of them speaking sort of a step removed from whoever they're talking's not personal, it's more general. It could be used innocuously to start a statement that may be a summary or conclusion (as in "you don't want to skip any of these routine auto maintenance steps we've reviewed"), or used to instruct in a more defensive or superior way. Within this particular context, I hear it as a combination of superior instruction mixed with defensiveness. I think it's reasonable to expect that he does not like his professionalism being questioned by people he does not consider his investigative peers, and he also is aware of the defense strategy of portraying his focus as unjust so he could feel the need to defend against that. In this case, I think "you don't" and "you don't just" are used as an expression of dismissive contempt toward anyone who would think or imply that a professional investigation would focus on a single suspect to the exclusion of any other reasonable option. The phrase "lock and load" is what I would call an "insider knowledge" phrase. When someone speaks, as in this context of significant court testimony, in terminology that they know is unfamiliar to some of their listeners, one of the options I consider is that they are demonstrating their superior knowledge and trying to show the gap that exists between themselves (the educated insider) and the others who aren't familiar with the terminology; another option is that they are so intent on expressing themselves that they unwittingly use the phrases they most often use...their comfortable verbal habits, so to speak. In this case, lock and load may be a common police expression....I as a layperson can imagine what it means, but I don't ever use it in my own expression. When I hear it, I associate it with weaponry, a target, adrenalin high and poised on the brink of action, preparing to shoot either in defense or as the aggressor, single-minded focus, and tunnel vision. Having said all this, I am very much looking forward to learning the significance of this phrase because I did not recognize it was significant until Peter said so. I have so much to learn and I'm so thankful for this site!

Anonymous said...

After I watched the last episode I was feeling sad for Avery and Dassey, but then I read the transcripts from Dassey's questioning and now I'm feeling totally different. Dassey is all over the place with his story but there are elements of truth to it for sure. The documentary left out a lot. I suggest to anyone who is on the fence about this to read the Dassey transcripts.

Ney said...

Anon at 2:20, Yes there are several consistent parts in Brendan's statements proving they committed the murder. The inconsistent parts are puzzling though. For example, Why would he change stabbing the victim in the throat to stabbing her in the chest? It does not make sense to lie about that detail.

Brendan changed his story several times. It seems lots of the changes were due to admitting to more involvement in the crime, and trying to cover an initial lie. He had a shady story about how Steven Avery carried the victim from the house to the garage. That was deceptive.
After reading and watching all of his interrogations I came to the conclusion, Brendan was truthful about both of them being responsible for the victim's death, but he was not truthful about the location of the stabbing, and some details about who did what exactly.

Brendan: "Well I came home off the bus and then walked home into the house and I played Playstation 2 until 5:00 o'clock, called my friend and watched Tv and then at 6:00 o'clock I got a phone call from Blaine's boss and I told him that Blaine was going trick or treating and at 7:00 o'clock I got a phone call from Steven to see if I wanted to come over to the bonfire. I had told him I would and then while I was getting' ready, he called again and seein' when I was, what was taking me so long and so I went over there. He went to go pick up some stuff around the yard then after that we, he asked me to come in the house cuz he wanted to show me somethin'. And he showed me that she was laying on the bed ta her hands were ro-roped up to the bed and that her legs were cuffed. And then he told me to have sex with her and so I did because I thought I was not gonna get away from 'em cuz he was too strong, so I did what he said and then after that, he untied her and uncuffed her and then he brought her outside and before he went outside, he told me to grab her clothes and her shoes. So we went inta the garage and before she went out, when before he took her outside he ti, had tied up her hands and feet and then was in the garage and he stabbed her and then he told me to. And, after that he wanted to make sure she was dead or somethin' so he shot her five times and while he was doing that I wasn't looking because I can't watch that stuff. So I was standing by the big door in the garage and then after that, he took her outside and we put her on the fire and we used her clothes ta clean up the, some of the blood. And, when we put her in the fire and her clothes, we were standing right by the garage, to wait for it to get down so we threw some of that stuff on it after it went down. And then, 'bout 9:00 o'clock my mom came home and she called Steven on his cell phone to tell him that I was supposed to be home at 10:00 o'clock and she asked Steven if I had a sweater on. So while we waited for the fire to go down by the time it did get down, it was probably close to 10:00 o'clock so he told me to go home, so I did and then got in the house and I talked to my mom for a little bit, then I went to bed. "

Does anyone know if Brendan's house was searched as well?

Ney said...

The above statement's date is 05/13/06 Part of Brendan's interrogation transcript. I believe it is his 3rd or 4th time speaking to the officers.

John Mc Gowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Mc Gowan said...


911 call released in Chandler 'intruder' shooting

Note alibi building. Amongst many inconsistencies.

John Mc Gowan said...

Making A Murderer rape victim breaks her silence saying Steven Avery asked her to buy him a house after being released from prion - and that she still believes he may have murdered Teresa Halbach

Penny Beerntsen was raped in 1985 while running along a beach near her home in Wisconsin, and identified Steven Avery as the perpetrator
He served 18 years in jail before he was set free due to DNA evidence that proved the assailant had been Gregory Allen
Beerntsen is breaking her silence and revealing how awful she felt now that Avery is the star of the new Netlfix series Making A Murderer
She is also revealing that Avery asked her to buy him a house after he was freed from jail
Beerntsen said she was approached to be in the Netflix documentary but did not participate because she is not convinced he is innocent
Avery is serving life behind bars for the murder of Teresa Halbach

The woman whose testimony sent Steven Avery to prison for a rape her did not commit is speaking publicly for the first time since the release of the controversial and polarizing new Netflix documentary Making A Murderer.
Penny Beerntsen was raped and attacked in 1985 while running along a beach near her home in Wisconsin, and eventually identified Steve Avery as her assailant, sending him to prison for 18 years before he was released because of DNA evidence that proved another man had committed the crime.
The practices used by the police in getting Beerntsen to pick Avery out of a lineup were called into question, and she is now speaking about how awful she felt when she realized what had happened because of her testimony.
She is also sharing what her relationship as like with Avery after he was released, and the fact that he asked her for money to buy a house.
Scroll down for video

'The day I learned of the exoneration was worse than the day I was assaulted,' wrote Beerntsen in a piece for The Marshall Project.
She then added; 'After the DNA results came back, I just felt powerless. I can’t un-ring this bell. I can’t give Steve back the years that he’s lost.'
Adding to the guilt Beerntsen felt was the fact that Avery was 23-year-old at the time he was out in jail, and that he had five children - including newborn twins.
'There was really no physical evidence connecting the two of us. It was a she-said-he-said case. And my testimony sent an innocent person to prison,' said Beerntsen.
'His kids have grown up without him. I absolutely wanted the earth to swallow me.'
At this time the real perpetrator, Gregory Allen, was arrested for the crime.

When Avery was released he seemed to harbor shockingly little ill will towards Beerntsen the way she explains it, and she even apologized to his parents, who had little to say.
He then called her however and things got a bit weird.
'A few months after I met Steve, he left a message for me. So I called him and he was kind of beating around the bush. He was telling me how he didn’t have any money and he couldn’t get a job and he was living on his parent’s property and it wasn’t going well and he wanted to get his own place to live and it would really be nice to have a house,' said Berrntsen.


John Mc Gowan said...

'I finally came out and said, “Steve, are you asking me to buy you a house?” And he said yes. I said, “That’s not possible. We probably should not be talking to each other. I will be deposed in your civil suit.”
'He was cordial, he wasn’t abusive or anything. It was just clear he wanted money from me.'
Shortly after she learned that Teresa Halbach was missing and was last seen on Avery's property, saying that is part of the reason she has a 'complicated' relationship with the man.
Meanwhile, when asked why she did not speak with the producers of the Netflix documentary, she said; 'They were very convinced that he was innocent. I was not convinced.'
Avery is currently serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole for the murder of Halbach.
Read more:
Penny Beernsten, the Rape Victim in ‘Making A Murderer,’ Speaks Out | The Marshall Project

Anonymous said...

SA may have committed the crime so he'd have a place to live. By the looks of the first trailer-which looks like a shaved ice hut on wheels-he was accustomed to confined places. No way to get a job since he only had prison experience from such a young age, estranged from his five children and wife, and it's apparent his brothers, and possibly his whole family weren't too sympathetic about his 18 years of misery;
Nor were his accusers.

Beersten led the answer to buying a house. He didn't say it.

At least in prison he had friends, three hots and a cot. Now he'd have a tale to make more friends.

Most notable is he thinks an old prisoner may have been responsible. Worth exploring.

mom2many said...

Trigger @ 9:49pm

The only reason given in the documentary that the Avery family was unpopular is because they are junkers. This is ridiculous. Here in a neighboring county, we also have a family that are junkers. They are well-respected members of the community, active in church and school and community events. It is also common for families to be part-time junker/pickers around here. If someone leaves something at the curb, it is more likely to get picked by a neighbor to haul to the recycling for a little extra cash, than to get picked up by the garbage collector.

So if the Averys had a reputation, and I believe that they did, it was because of unruly behavior, likely generational behavior, that got the whole clan painted with a broad brush. However, that wouldn't fit with the 'innocence' narrative, so the facts get twisted.

Hey Jude said...

Avery: ...I saw her leave. So I'm not the last one. Whoever did this is the last onel
Strang: Human endeavors are muddy, they are imperfect by definition, and a chase for the truth in a criminal trial can be vain. Justice, it seems to me, is staying true to the set of principles we have about what we do when confronted with uncertainty about the truth. On which side do we err? Do we err on the side of depriving a human being of liberty or do we err on the side of a human being sustaining his claim to liberty when we're uncertain as we almost always are? Kratz: Was Steven Avery the only person being investigated? No. Explain that. We go into an investigation and you're not gonna lock and load. You're gonna listen to all the intelligence and information being brought in, look at all the evidence. Um... You're there to find the truth. That's what we go there for, is to find the truth. And the object is to allow the evidence and the facts that are uncovered as you go along to lead you to the most logical suspect. I think you mentioned before the last person to see her alive, obvious place to start, is that right? Most certainly. You said that you... Mr. Avery was not the only person being investigated. Fassbender: Correct. But that you felt he was the most obvious place to start. Fassbender: If I have to pick a place to start, the person who last saw that person alive is a pretty logical place to start. Buting: All right. Often the most obvious suspect in a homicide is a spouse, you look at the spouse, right? Yes. The people we love the most. Buting: Or you look at a boyfriend or an ex-boyfriend. Don't you? Fassbender: Yes. How about a roommate who doesn't report the victim missing for three, almost four days? Yes. Somebody you'd want to investigate? That's a possible area to look at. That'd be somebody you'd want to ask for an alibi? Buting: In most cases, the people who are close to a victim are the ones who are in fact the killers. And in this case, in every single instance, all those people who are close to her, the police never investigated. Any of them. They never from the minute the case was reported considered... seriously considered the possibility that Teresa Halbach was killed by somebody she knew. Kratz: How did you know Teresa?

Read more at:

It's a messy transcript made worse because the formatting disappeared when I copied and pasted it. The context in which Fassbender says what he does is in relation to finding the truth:
'We go into an investigation and you're not gonna lock and load. You're gonna listen to all the intelligence and information being brought in, look at all the evidence. Um... You're there to find the truth. That's what we go there for, is to find the truth. And the object is to allow the evidence and the facts that are uncovered as you go along to lead you to the most logical suspect.'

It is then made clear that none of those who would be looked at in any similar investigation - those close to Teresa, not even her roommate or ex-boyfriend (who was still hanging round, who knew her passwords, and apparently has a history of stalking) were seriously questioned, considered, or even asked to provide alibis. There was no wider view or investigation, Teresa's brother, roommate and ex-boyfriend were even allowed into the search area. It seems obvious the investigators did 'lock and load' on Avery, because they had already decided what the truth was. They may be correct in their conclusions, but that would not be due to a thorough investigation.
picked on, and everyone who is not involved in it hates police corruption - so it's easier to suspend rational faculties and to sympathise, whether that is in fact merited, or not.


Hey Jude said...

Continued (please ignore last sentence of previous post - cut and paste error)

A good question raised on Reddit is why was Teresa, bleeding, placed in the back of her car if she was supposedly murdered in the garage - the bonfire was next to the house. If she was killed elsewhere why would her body not have been burned elsewhere rather than brought to the very public bonfire, along with her car? Her roommate or family could have appeared at Steven's place at any moment looking for her when she did not return within a reasonable time from the Avery appointment. Why were most of her remains not in the bonfire, but in the gravel pit? How can they be sure she did not leave Avery's place and meet her death wherever her car was when the plates were called in? Could she not have been murdered by someone who knew where she was going and that Avery would immediately fall under suspicion! It seems so much was not adequately taken into consideration that there could not have been a fair trial - particularly given the lack of forensic evidence along with the planted evidence - who had the key, and from where did they get it? Even if Steven and Brendan were responsible, they did not get a fair trial because the investigation was not thorough enough. I think, in other cases, 'the first suspect' would/should be the ex-boyfriend, so it sounds as though not only did they 'not lock and load' on him, they didn't even give consideration to the possibility that he might have been involved, he was never considered as a suspect as they had already 'locked and loaded' on Steven. If it were not for Peter's analysis showing lack of a reliable denial, I would be inclined to think Steven may have been set up - I could probably even discount the phone conversations, but that might be a wilful disregard. I still haven't looked much at Steven, though - later in the month I should be able to watch the documentary at my leisure on a decent screen if it will still be showing on Netflix, doubt I will look at it much before then. I think the emotions rise because everyone hates to be falsely accused or picked on, and everyone who is not involved in it hates police corruption - so it's easier to suspend rational faculties and to sympathise, whether that is in fact merited, or not.

mom2many said...

Hey Jude,
Where did you get that "most of her remains" were in the gravel pit? From my reading, there were two shards of pelvis found at the gravel pit, and they were never identified as belonging to Teresa Halbach.

In order for the framing to work from the front end, one would have to know that she was supposed to be at Avery's that day, intercept her directly, and probably have a vendetta against him to set him up for it. This would take a level of foreknowledge and planning that is inconsistent with Teresa's circle having done it. From the log of phone calls I've seen reported, it appears that the appointment was made that same day. Where Teresa lived was nearly an hour away. It's too much of a stretch for me to consider someone else not immediately local to the area.

AnonMaine said...

I can't wrap my brain around why Brendan would give statements that made things look worse for him than better. Why does he say she was shot ten times, then five times. Why does he say that he slit her throat on the bed and strangled her, then say that she was only stabbed twice in the garage. None of this makes sense to me. How could someone have their throat slit on a bed and there be no blood on that mattress? And, if there were human remains found at another location that they couldn't prove were Teresa's, why didn't it launch an additional investigation into whose remains they actually were? Perhaps this wasn't the first murder? And if they were Teresa's why on earth would they have dug through the burn pit, scooped out a few hip bone shards and transported them elsewhere? I wish I'd never watched this documentary, LOL!

Sus said...

As for Teresa's ex boyfriend and brother, even the defense did not think they had any part in harming Teresa.

Strang said they were only trying to show that her boyfriend was not seriously treated as a suspect. It was part of the defense strategy to get the boyfriend to say on the stand he did not feel like a suspect. How ridiculous. That does not mean he wasn't questioned and moved on from.

The defense turned in a document listing five individuals they might bring up at trial as alternate suspects. The ex boyfriend and brother were not on the list.

It was the producers of the show who used editing and emotional focus to insinuate the ex boyfriend is suspect.

mom2many said...

AnonMaine, I have the same questions about the quarry remains, including whether there might be another victim. Without digging into the larger missing persons databases, there are not many listed missing in the relevant time period on The closest distance-wise would be Beulah Ware, 59 y, from Green Bay.

Maybe, because of the burning, there just wasn't enough remaining dna matter to test. They said Teresa was identified by dna pulled from a tooth.

Sus said...

I agree with Mom2many. There were bones found in the pit. They were not Teresa's.

Teresa's bones, including her skull with a bullet hole through it, were in the fire pit in Steven Avery's yard.

Teresa's bones were intertwined with tire rims, proving the tires were burned with her.

The fire pit which burned on the night of October 31 and which Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey both admit tending all that night.

The same night that Teresa was there that day. Proven by witnesses, phone calls from SA to Teresa's phone (which he tried to hide), and by her co-workers knowing her agenda for the day.

Of course, LE focused on SA as a suspect. And of course his defense team tried to muddy the waters. They went for the only thing they had left..."police are zeroing in on an innocent man just like they did before."

mom2many said...

As for Brendan, I think he and his mother realized how badly he screwed up at the first interview. From then on, I think he threw out anything he could come up with to muddy the waters in the hopes there would be such confusion he couldn't be convicted. I see a sullen and belligerent, not stupid, young man. In the series where he is being questioned about her head, I think he knows exactly what they want him to say, and he is throwing out anything but the truth to convince them he doesn't know. He was raised around guns and hunting. There's no logical reason why cutting her hair would be a more reasonable guess than getting shot in the head, unless he is avoiding that particular guess on purpose.

Hey Jude said...

Mom2many - Brendan said Steven took a bucket of bones to the gravel pit from the bonfire (am I really relying on anything Brendan was encouraged to say? - lol) - I had it in mind most of the bones were in the gravel pit, but I'm not sure if there was a reason for that beyond Brendan's claim. There did not appear to be enough bones anywhere to account for a complete body, as I recall.

Why didn't they seem to know for absolute sure where the body was burned - gravel pit, bonfire or burn barrel? I would have thought they would find and recover body fats in the ground, not only an assortment of fragments, most of which were unidentifiable. Did they demonstrate how Steven made a fire hot enough to consume a body to that degree? I think that there are so many questions round the fire, gravel pit and burn barrel shows that the original questions were not answered satisfactorily enough at the trial.

I have also wondered if Brendan is just acting stupid to create confusion, and for the most part, I think he is. I still think he might have been guessing about the shot to the head, but that's maybe because I don't like to think I could be quite so taken in by him. Hmm.

Are there crime scene photos online, does anyone know? - I want to know what 'intertwined' looks like, given the fragmentation of the bones - was it all melded in a mass together, or were the bones and tyre bands more just very close together. It's fragments, how could fragments be intertwined - intertwining requires at least length of something, even a little. Semantics, maybe they just meant melded.

John Mc Gowan said...

This case has more twist and turns than "Chubby Checker"

Trigger said...

When Steven Avery said, "I saw her leave..." (most likely a true statement)

I thought, he is using the word "leave" like he saw her leave this world in death.

If he is saying that he saw her "leave" meaning he was present at Theresa's death, then anything that follows the word "leave" (so therefore) he wasn't the last person to see her alive is the fabricated conclusion.

A true statement is now used to deceive by adding that conclusion.

Michele said...

Has anyone read their interview in Rolling stone? Ricciardi said, "We were taking a procedural look at the system. We have no stake in the outcome of the trial. We have no stake in whether Steven is innocent or guilty. What a risk we would have taken as filmmakers to devote all our resource and time to a case if it was going to hinge in a particular outcome. What we were documenting the procedure that led to the verdicts."
Based on their editing, I'm doubtful.

mom2many said...

But he has also contradicted himself, when he gave a detailed account, he said she shut her truck door and he headed into the trailer to set down an AutoTrader book she gave him, then when he went back out she was gone. Which account is true? I'll see if I can dig up the transcript with that account and post it below.

mom2many said...

Here it is.

She goes and gets in her truck and then gives you an Auto Trader magazine, is that right?
Is she in the truck or out of the truck when she gives you the magazine?
She's in the truck. In the truck.
OK, then what happens next?
Then she gave me the book, shut the door, I walked toward the house, I put the book on the computer.
I came back out. And then I was gonna walk over by Bobby... but then his vehicle was gone.
So you walk in the house, you put the magazine down, you come out and Bobby's vehicle's gone? Bobby's vehicle's gone.

Read more at:

John Mc Gowan said...

mom2many, Trigger

18 mins 30 secs

Trigger said...

The things that Brendan said he saw and did to Theresa were not made up. He made drawings of Theresa tied to the bed with her arms and legs spread apart. She was tied with rope and chains. Who could make up something as terrible as that?

He said that he had sex with her while she was restrained in that manner. She was unable to stop anything that was done to her that day.

He said that Theresa begged him to stop the assault.

Who makes up something that horrible and cruel?

John Mc Gowan said...

Former Steven Avery case juror on ‘Making a Murderer’ and the story behind it


maudes harold said...

Gov. Walker is denying the pardon for Avery.

*Thanks John for the links to the series! :)

Anonymous said...

Here's a discussion of the legalities behind suggesting alternate suspects, from the excellent Colin Miller, pertaining specifically to this case:


Anonymous said...

Trigger @ 12:56 said: The things that Brendan said he saw and did to Theresa were not made up. He made drawings of Theresa tied to the bed with her arms and legs spread apart. She was tied with rope and chains. Who could make up something as terrible as that?

Anyone can make up something like that. Lots of people are paid money to dream things like that up in books and movies. I don't have any trouble at all believing it is made up, and have wondered whether we'll find out someday there's a tie to some movie he watched...precisely because it was so farfetched, I'm not sure *this* kid could go to such lengths in his imagination.


Sus said...

Thank you for the law blog article. Interesting. So the list of five alternate suspects the defense submitted did not reach the standard for admissibility at that point in time.

Because of the change they possibly could now. There must be motive and actual evidence to present an alternate suspect in court. The suspect must also not be ruled out by time, place or circumstance.

A judge may have ruled Bobby Dassey and Chuck Avery as admissible under this standard.

Trigger said...

Branden was not paid to write a book or script about what he say about Theresa's demise.

You have just re-enforced my belief that he thinks about torturing, raping, and killing women who are tied up in that manner then burning body in the salvage yard.

Branden is as sick as Steven.

I want to thank the Governor Walker for rejecting a pardon for Steven Avery.

Anonymous said...

You see? YOU SEE? that's where you end up....every time. I end up there every time.


John Mc Gowan said...

‘Making a Murderer’ prosecutor receiving chilling death threats

Former Calumet County District Attorney Ken Kratz, who was featured in the Netflix’s “Making a Murderer,” tells HLN’s Nancy Grace about the chilling death threats he’s received following the release of the documentary series.

Ney said...

There are some parts Brendan clearly lied about. But he never changed his story about both of them being responsible for the crime, about him raping her and them murdering, and burning her.

AnonMain wrote:
'I can't wrap my brain around why Brendan would give statements that made things look worse for him than better."

Yes, very interesting, probably he was confused about which is better for him. Sadly, the truth, the actual crime, could have looked even worse than he described it.

Jen, during the trial, they claimed, he used "Kiss the girls" storyline. That has some very disturbing scenes according to an article, but does not match much of his version.
After reading all of Brendan's statements, I am convinced he did not make all of that up.

Trigger said...

Thanks for the story about Ken Kratz and the death threats on Nancy Grace.

The biased "documentary" writers have given new energy to Steven Avery's past wreckage of other people's lives. The carnage continues.

mom2many said...

John mcgowan,
Thanks for the link. What a disgusting turn that people will be so vile and reactionary over a biased documentary.

Tania Cadogan said...

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker will not pardon the convicted killer at the center of Netflix documentary Making a Murderer - after it emerged he once claimed that his brothers may have committed the crime he is serving time for.

Steven Avery, 53, and his nephew Brendan Dassey were convicted in March 2007 of the murder of photographer Teresa Halbach, 25, in Manitowoc, Wisconsin, and have remained imprisoned ever since.

Both protest their innocence and court documents show Avery believes his own brothers may have killed the woman and framed him for her murder due to a family dispute.

But despite the 10-part series casting doubt on their convictions and online petitions demanding their release, Walker’s office ruled out any chance of a reprieve.

Walker, a former Republic presidential candidate, is not swayed by more than 300,000 signatures on calling for Avery’s exoneration, his spokeswoman Laurel Patrick said.

‘Those who feel they have been wrongly convicted can seek to have their convictions overturned by a higher court,’ she said.

A petition President Barack Obama to pardon the men has received more than 113,000 – more than the 100,000 that is need for the administration to comment on the request.

However, the president does not have the authority to issue pardons in state cases. Only Walker – who has not issued one since his election in 2010 – has that power.

Making A Murderer became an instant phenomenon when it began streaming on Netflix on December 18.

The documentary questioned the handling of the case and the motivation of Manitowoc County law enforcement officials.

It suggests authorities planted evidence against the men, a claim that has been rejected by Robert Hermann, the current sheriff of Manitowoc County.

But it has since emerged that Avery claimed his brothers Earl and Charles may have carried out the murder, for which he is serving a life sentence without parole.

In legal documents filed by Avery in 2009, and obtained by TMZ, he claims that both of his brothers have a history of sexual violence against women - with Earl once pleading no contest to sexually assaulting his daughters.

Meanwhile, Charles was once charged with sexually assaulting his wife.

The documents also allege that Charles had a history of harassment against women visiting the family auto salvage and pursued one so aggressively, she reported him to police.

Avery then goes on to claim that his brothers had a reason to frame him as they were fighting over the family business.

They were also jealous that he was on the verge of a multi-million dollar settlement after being wrongfully convicted of sexual assault.

Charles spoke with TMZ and said he had nothing to do with the death of Halbach.

He also claims that he never sexually assaulted his wife and claims he had been running the family business since 1990, and if anything wanted to have his brother join him as he was about to receive a massive settlement.

Avery had initially served 18 years in prison until DNA evidence exonerated him of an unrelated sexual assault conviction in 1985. He was released in 2003.

He then filed a $36 million federal civil rights lawsuit against the county, along with its former sheriff and district attorney, for the wrongful conviction.

But less than a month after the federal lawsuit was filed, Avery was charged with first-degree intentional homicide for the murder of Halbach.

That case was settled in 2006 for about $400,000, according to online court documents.

Tania Cadogan said...


Avery's defense argued that Manitowoc officers, who were in the middle of being deposed in his lawsuit, were also involved in the gathering of evidence for the Halbach murder and may have framed him.

Avery’s nephew Dassey, who was 16 at the time, then confessed to sexually assaulting Halbach and cutting her throat on his uncle's orders. He later said the confession was coerced.

None of Halbach's DNA was ever discovered inside of Avery's home, where the prosecution claimed she was raped and shot in the head.

Avery was sentenced to life in prison without parole. Dassey was also given a life sentence but has a chance for early release in 2048.

Since the series aired, two online petitions have been launched to campaign for the two men to be given a presidential pardon.

One of the campaigns claims that Making a Murderer shows that the justice system 'embarrassingly failed both men, completely ruining their entire lives.'

However, several others have spoken out claiming the documentary has missed out several significant pieces of evidence from the case.

According to those close to the case, this evidence includes the fact Avery met Halbach wearing just a towel and called her three times on the day she disappeared.

And according to Ken Kratz, the ex-Calumet County District Attorney, who prosecuted Avery, the show has left out vital information.

In an email to , Mr Kratz claims that when Avery first served time in prison, he told an inmate that he was planning on building a 'torture chamber' on his release so he could rape, torture and kill young women.

The former prosecutors also said the fellow inmate revealed that Avery told him the best way to get rid of a body was to 'burn it' because the heat destroys DNA evidence.

Read more:

Anonymous said...

I'd love to see some quotes from the brothers refuting allegations of their involvement to help me get off this dang fence!

Anonymous said...

I found this letter from Brendan:

Wondering how much of the "innocent" language is parroting the legal system? Maybe to his mind, it doesn't matter if he didn't do it, but it matters if the court finds him innocent?

I'm saying this because a lot of what he said seems like someone else's opinion - "lied through their teeth," "I missed so much of my life already."

I'm wondering if we know that we know that we know that a person who didn't do a crime would never stop at saying he was innocent.


mom2many said...

Jen, I suspect that was written by someone else and then Dassey signed it. The handwriting looks nothing like the images of Dassey's handwritten statements from the documentary. I remember noticing how juvenile and sloppy his writing was, and while it may have improved, that image is drastically different.

The phrase "real truth" stuck out to me. I don't know what more to say, though, since I don't think this was written entirely or possibly at all by Brendan.

Anonymous said...

Well, if he said his confession was the truth, then this might be the "real" truth. ?


patrice said...

Lock and load...........when you have your target then you lock and load. My son hunts deer and this is always his saying when he is out hunting.

JMTO said...

Theresa Halbach's brothers statements in the beginning of the documentary, when they are starting the search, bother me.
Why does he talk about the grieving process taking days, months, etc. when he doesn't even know if she is dead or not?
She's only missing?

If one of my family members went missing - and we couldn't find their vehicle- my first thought In the days that follow would be that possibly they might have had an accident, and were down an embankment possibly hurt, waiting for help.

I wouldn't automatically assume she is dead.
Or that I need to start grieving.

I guess that bothered me, and then finding out the voicemails were erased and he just "guessed" at her password is odd, too.

I'm not saying he killed her - I'm just saying his statements bother me. Idk why.

*Anyone can say "what about the cell phone" to call for help- but if you have ever been in a car accident with a cell phone out- you will know there is about a 95% chance if it is laying on the seat, that cell phone is going for a ride too. You won't be able to find it.
(At least at the time, I couldn't find mine and ha to flag someone over for help and to call)

Anonymous said...

Teresa's ex-boyfriend had some really suspicious, deep scratches on his hand at the time of Teresa's disappearance. They look exactly like scratch marks made by another person. There is a photo of them on Reddit, and they look ten times worse than the cut on SA's finger. The cut, by the way, that supposedly left the blood in the RAV4, but at the same time, no fingerprints, because the prosecution also said he was wearing gloves. Okaaayyy.

The so-called "sweat DNA" on the hood latch that Nancy Grace keeps talking about is just DNA - there's no way to tell if it's from sweat. It could be from a toothbrush for all we know. There are also no fingerprints around the hood latch - how is that possible?

Brendan Dassey has an IQ of 69. He did not understand what "inconsistent" meant, nor did his mother. He did not understand what "on purpose" meant. His lawyer allowed him to be questioned alone, without himself or Brendan's mother present. The entire process was disgusting. The part of his prison phone call to his mom where he said "they got in my head" about the police was not shown in court - but the rest was.

Brendan reminds me so much of Jessie Miskelley of the West Memphis 3 - another miscarriage of justice where a not-very-bright kid was lead into a false confession by a cop with an agenda.

Ken Kratz has been diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder. He has been diagnosed as a sex addict. His character is far from upstanding and he has crossed ethical boundaries with his sexting scandal.

Amateur Analyst said...

Here is a comment from episode 7, "Framing Defense". In context, Fassbender is being questioned about the discovery of the vehicle.

Fassbender: When I got there on Saturday, ultimately I got down by the car crusher about 2:25 I think it was, and the officers that were staged there, I told them, or I recommended that they start a log.

Read more at:

Is using the word "staged" to refer to officers protecting a scene common language in LE? It just jumped out at me.

Jenn Cav said...

Mr. Fassbender doesn't directly answer the question and uses distancing language. "You don't" is a hot spot. "lock and load" is also suspect because he does not address what was actually asked: whether or not he focused on only one suspect.

You taught us that a denial includes three parts: "1.I 2. didn't or did not 3. the act of which he's being accused."

Based on what you've taught us, Fassbender's language suggests that he's not able to truthfully directly deny focusing on only one suspect.

Furthermore, "lock and load" is troublesome because of the reference to a deadly weapon...something capable of distributing dire consequences if used carelessly.

The next mention changes the wording from "one suspect" to "The first suspect."

This is an admission that Avery was the *first.*

I believe Avery committed this crime. I also believe the filmmakers deliberately obfuscated key facts and pushed their own perspective...but pushing my bias aside and applying the skills you taught us to Fassbender's statement ask you've asked, I have to accept that Fassbender likely didn't do his due diligence as an officer when it comes to pursuing other suspects.

That's terrible.

JennCav said...

Okay, I went back and typed out VERBATIM what was said by Fassbender on the stand IN THE DOCUMENTARY.

Bear in mind, this is likely not the whole truth from court documents. This is the snippet presented by the biased filmmakers but here it is, verbatim, AS-PRESENTED in "Making A Murderer."

Prosecutor: "Was Steven Avery the only person being investigated?"

Fassbander: "No."

P: "Explain that."

F: "We-we go into an investigations and're not, you're not gonna lock and load. Y-You're gonna listen to all the intelligence being bought in, look at all the evidence,'re there to--to find the truth. That's what we go there for, is to find the truth. And the object is to allow the evidence and the facts that are uncovered as you go along to lead you to the most logical suspect."

P: "I think you mentioned before; the last person to see her alive...obvious place to start. Isn't that right?"

F: "Most certainly."

Defense: "You said that you--Mister Avery was NOT the only person being investigated but that you felt he was the most obvious place to start."

F: "If I have to pick a place to start, the last person to see that person alive is the most logical place to start."

D: "Alright. Often the most obvious suspect in a homocide is the look at the spouse, right?"

F: "Yes. People we love the most."

D: "Or, you look at a boyfriend or an ex boyfriend, right?"

F: "Yes."

D: How 'bout a roommate who doesn't report the victim missing for three...almost four days?"

F: "Yes."

D: "Is that somebody you'd wanna investigate?"

F: "That's a possible area to look at."

D: "That'd be somebody you wanna ask for an alibi?"

Mr Hyatt, I have immense respect for you and though my assessment that Fassbender's statement unreliability hasn't changed, I think the verbatim context is important here.

Please correct me if the info you have provided here is from more reliable sources like court records and I will gladly concede this point.