Saturday, December 26, 2015

Steven Avery: Making Murderer

Upon request, 

I hope to publish some analysis from the statements made in the documentary, "Making Murderer" about Steven is currently on Net Flix streaming. 

I will begin with the early statements of Avery, including the passivity and sensitivity about how he burned a cat to death, as well as deception by his cousin, and what the deception may be based upon; since even false statements are based upon something. 

Are many readers familiar with the case?

It is a series rich for those who wish to learn Statement Analysis and practice.  To do so:

Ignore the intent  of the documentary and listen to what people say. 

Write down not only sensitivity indictors but the topic that the statement addressed,  and what it reveals.  

Hint:  allow each subject to guide you, and not the documentary, including the pace, or the order of presentation particularly when it appears out of chronological order.  Be especially careful with Avery's attorney's statements.  

Note minimization.  This is always important in not only the reduction of truth, but in the need to minimize.  

If you are able to identify which episode your opinion is referring to, by using context.  

Note the denial of the rape, and compare it to other denials...The rape was denied, early, and without sensitivity indicators.  

*Was it the same denial?  

I hope to have analysis up as I go further in this documentary.  Heather and I are up to the 3rd entry.  

What about the 2 officers who found the key?

Do you believe the testimony?  Why, or why not?


Francine Robinson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
lynda said...

I started watching this when it first came up on Netflix. I don't know if I was distracted or what, but it didn't hold my interest. I will give it another go since you'll be discussing it and "take notes"

Anonymous said...

I think I'll skip it too and wait for the transcripts for analysis.

He'd been unfairly convicted of rape. However, he had a criminal history and the murdered had last been seen at his business and the body found there, too.
How many times had he done things and not been convicted? If it wasn't him, it is someone he knew.

The dna did not match in rape. did he participate by other means?

ShayShay said...

I dislike the fact that they didn't interview anyone from the prosecution side.

Anonymous said...

I do not believe the cop that found the key, every time they were asked a question, there were really never any yes or no answers, it was "not that I recall" and they all seemed flustered, especially when caught in a lie.

Peter Hyatt said...

We are in the fourth episode and the lack of truth being told from almost all, is stunning.

LISTEN to Steven Avery and let him guide you.

The amount of

But listen through all the nonsense and let the words guide you. Ignore the music.


Hey Jude said...

I don't have Netflix - found it on YouTube, though:

Anonymous said...

I've read a little. It's just odd her car, charred corpse, dna and bullet holes in garage floor aligned with testimony from his nephew. This is a conspiracy film intent on pointing the finger at everyone for their own profit. They could care less if another is murdered by releasing him. BTW, have any more been murdered?
If someone staged this crime to set Avery up so he couldn't collect on a lawsuit for wrongful imprisonment, wouldn't that be a lot more work than just murdering him?

Too convoluted. I'd be more inclined to waste my time connecting DB to the murderers that killed his wife. It would make much more sense

Found this at the end of one article:

Making a Murderer is not pleasant. There were moments I actually went to recommend it to friends and family, then stopped myself. Do I want to put people through this? But it’s almost mandatory viewing at this point. True crime is a look into events that ruined lives, took some away completely. It doesn’t belong on Reddit boards, or Twitter. Shit, I don’t even know if it belongs on Netflix. But it definitely has its place. Maybe we shouldn’t be so surprised this place isn’t a pleasant spot to spend ten hours.""

Klv said...

Thank you Peter!

Misha said...

I sat through about 5 hours of the police interviews with Brendan. A lot of it consisted of them getting to go over admissions he had already made to try and get him to flesh them out as getting any information out of him was like pulling teeth He acted like a teenager, mumbling, saying I don't know to a lot of questions in the way teenagers can stonewall. The detectives interviewing him did not feed him information or berate him etc. They were patient and it was a tedious watch. I haven't watched the series yet but going by the March and May interviews with Brendan, I am sure he was telling some of the truth and the murder happened pretty much the way he said.

The link for the Brendan interviews: (March Part 1) (May Part 1)

Anonymous said...

I hope they throw whomever sent death threats to the DA after this film was released in prison with Avery...roommates.

Anonymous said...

Te makers of the film followed West Memphis 3 closely and hope to do the same-run the court room for their agendas. Among which are: Save the Children (might have known), transgender rights,all things green among others. If it's a cause, they are into it whether or not they research it at all. The two gals look lesbian. Sounds about right. For whatever reason the gays, drug runners, cause seekers and tin-foil wrapped conspiracy theorists must rule the junkyards as well.

Peter Hyatt said...

I may do analysis on Andrew Colburn.

After 5 episodes, I have found one person who, thus far, has not been deceptive. Everyone else who spoke at any length, has used deception in some form.

Here is something to consider:

Might you look at a guilty person of whom you, as a juror, may have to acquit due to the lack of evidence or misconduct?

klv said...

Answer: According to the laws in this country, YES. Otherwise the whole system is moot.

The system portrayed in the doc is a frightening travesty!

Anonymous said...

If I knew he was guilty, but the evidence wasn't presented in court, I think I could find him guilty.
Think of Casey Anthony. The jury knew she did it. Just because the prosecution didn't have enough evidence (in this case, I think they did, they were just overcome by smoke and mirrors, or the sparkly lies of the witnesses)she was found not guilty. I think that's the bigger tragedy.

Peter Hyatt said...

Interesting anonymous, choose a name.

The tricky part is this:

in the Casey Anthony jury, if they 'knew' she did it, was it not then proven?

Here is my struggle:

I feel as you did.

I would have concluded that he did it but the State did not prove it. I have a reason why I believe he did it; his own words but these were words OUTSIDE of court...

it makes it very difficult.


Heather and I both cited Casey Anthony case, too.


rjb said...

How much, if anything, of a factor in analyzing the statements of Steven Avery and his nephew Brendan do their documented IQs play? If I recall correctly, Steven's IQ was reported as 75 and Brendan's as 73; 70 is where the "average" IQ range begins. Does this or should this information influence the way their statements are analysed?

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

My son told me about this documentary on Netflix. He said I would love it because he knows I love statement analysis and tell him about the blog and the cases and how much I've learned. (a long way to go still) He said it's a very interesting and sad series. I don't have Netflix so I am unable to watch. However, I will follow along here :)

lynda said...

Boston...Find Hey Judes post above. I think she found it on youtube

Peter- IMO Casey Anthony was the white OJ. There was more than enough evidence provided to find her guilty. Just as there was in the OJ case. Are the people that sit on juries so easily swayed by the smoke and mirrors? What I see is defense attorneys muddy the waters with everything and anything they can. A jury member's thought process is going to go where it is led by someone in the position of authority. Whether it has any revelance to the case or not, the jury member will start to "wonder" about it. It clouds the judgment. We see this all the time in trials. Defense or prosecution will hammer a point or a theory enough times where it seems that juries begin to think it "must be true." Then reasonable doubt creeps in even though it has NO bearing on the case at hand. Was Casey Anthony molested? Who cares? It had NO bearing on whether or not she murdered her daughter. She did it. The reason WHY she did it is NOT something that the jury is charged with! A mixture of OJ's, Nicole's and Ron Goldmans blood was found on the console of his Bronco...THAT and only that would convict him in my eyes. I don't care that the glove didn't fit, that he's a hero to some, that he's black, one could convince me after that evidence that he did not do it. I wouldn't care if they had an expert contradicting that blood evidence. It was there. HE DID IT. I could go on about Casey Anthony too...I seriously think that during Voir Dire that attorneys are specifically looking for people of a certain "intelligence" level. Our juries are becoming so dumbed down they couldn't agree on what day it was. I would have no problem convicting on circumstantial evidence either if it was strong enough.

Hey Jude said...

I watched all ten episodes via the vodlocker links on Project Free TV - the ads were a bit pesky but the videos were took clicking on the ad on the video screen two or three times before they would play. I didn't register or download, just streamed. The site looks like it's been hacked since, but the links still work. Looks a bit virus likely - I wouldn't use it off iPad. Nothing's quite free.

mom2many said...

I finally had a chance to start watching the series last night with my husband. We live in a neighboring county, and had moved here several months before Teresa went missing. It was a huge story, as you can imagine. It is very difficult for me to calm down and just listen to the statements, because being a resident the deceptions of the documentarians themselves are so overpowering. All details are just so skewed. Manitowoc is not some small town. It is one of the bigger cities in Wisconsin.

My husband and I laughed about the projected disparity between the "working class farm kids" compared with the junk yard Averys. ALL the folks are so Wisconsin. It is very clannish around here. As you can tell by the multitude of cousins that appeared on camera, Avery is related to half the county, as many families are in their respective counties. Last names are a pedigree. If you have the right name, you are a favored son. If your name isn't recognized, you might get the table scrapings if you work hard enough. If you have the wrong name, there's not much hope for you.

I'm looking forward to reading more reactions in the further articles from people who are not as knowledgeable about the case. There is a lot of pausing and airing of my frustrations with the portrayal as well as individuals involved with my husband. The cat part was huge. I was watching, but my husband was cooking, so he just heard "over" the fire, while I had to stop and point that the report stated "on" the fire.

The interviews are so leading, too. The PD needs to bring you in, Peter, to give them a proper training.

Unknown said...

Steven Avery never testified so he couldn't have comited perjury.

Jeffery Hogue said...

The prosecution declined to be interview for the documentary.

Jeffery Hogue said...

100 is avg, below 70 is considered retarded.

Elle said...

I watched the series in one binge over two days. I cannot remember which episode that played the call from Andrew Colburn to the despatcher where he asked her to check the plate numbers of Teresa's car (Ep 7?). There is a clip on youtube: where the despatch call is replayed and Pam Sturm's testimony is also played.

I believe Colburn WAS looking at the vehicle in question when he made that call, and I believe that Pam Sturm had prior information on where to look for the vehicle and that it was not a random discovery on her part. Listen to Pam Sturm talking about when she first saw the RAV 4 she says "maybe this IS it" The emphasis is on the wrong word here. If she has no prior knowledge about the vehicle or it's location, her emphasis should be on the words IT (the subject=the car) or perhaps on MAYBE but not on IS. The way she is recalling her thoughts indicate that she has prior information that Teresa's car is up in this area and upon seeing the car she has an aha moment as in: "yes, maybe (whoever has told me to look here is right) maybe [the RAV4 I am looking at] IS her car."

If her discovery of the car was totally random without any prior information or direction her thought would be: "OMG I think this is IT" IT being the subject she is looking for, Teresa's car, or any sign of Teresa.﻿

Based on what was shown in the documentary, I believe that the police were deceitful with regards to the evidence. I believe they had access to the vehicle before it's official discovery and evidence WAS planted. I believe the key was planted as well as Avery's blood. I do not believe Teresa was killed in Avery's trailer or garage. I think the theory listed here: is a reasonable one. I hold no opinions on who committed the murder, but believe that the location of the murder and subsequent disposal of the remains are plausible in this theory. My personal belief is that Teresa never left the Avery property.

I also recommend reading this page: regarding the testing on the blood samples found in the car.

Is Avery a bad person? By all accounts he is. Is the community safer with him in jail? No doubt. BUT IF the police planted or tampered with evidence, can we be sure that Teresa's murderer is sitting in jail or still out there? This is not a moot point. Avery's wrongful rape conviction allowed the real rapist to commit other heinous crimes. There are other suspects for Teresa's murder, to my knowledge none were properly investigated and so we can never be sure if Avery was guilty of this crime and law enforcement helped assure he'd be convicted or if they were settling personal grudges.

Elle said...

Peter Hyatt: Are you able to review Pam Sturm's testimoney and analize?

Peter Hyatt said...


it sounds like you just did.