|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
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:
"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?