Steven Avery: Guilty Language
Embedded confession time
Analysing the words of a convicted murderer isn’t much of a challenge if you have to come to a conclusion, but they can be revealing.
I’ve looked at an interview with Steven Avery from Netflix’s Making A Murderer. The interview took place after Teresa Halbach was reported missing, but before the police found her car and DNA on Avery’s property.
You can see the full interview here
Let’s look at the words:
Interviewer:
So, my first question to you is how did you know Teresa?
Avery:
Oh, Teresa used ta come out here all the time, take pictures of my vehicles, and she put them in the book.
In his very first answer, Avery lets slip an admission. She “used to”. Unless he has fired her while she’s been missing, he’s explicitly saying he knows she won’t be coming back.
I: Okay, so how long have you known her?
A: I been using the book for a year, a little over a year, maybe, somewhere there.
He doesn’t answer the question directly, but it is a fair way to answer. However, the distance created by talking about the company rather than Teresa is another data point.
I: And when she came out here on your business, what was her personality like?
A: Same thing every time, you know? ‘Hi, how you doing?’. Mostly that and stay about five minutes and out she goes again.
Again, he doesn’t answer the question directly. He is asked about personality, yet he answers with the functions she carried out.
Furthermore, often people who are being deceptive about an event are keen to talk about what normally happens on occasions rather than what did happen. We’ll see more of that as the interview goes on.
I: So, how did you first hear that she disappeared?
A: When the cops came up by house by my mom and dad, and they asked me if she was out here and then once.. yeah… Then they asked me what time.. around two, two-thirty, that's what she mostly comes out you know two-two-thirty.. sometimes - there was one time was at three o'clock.
Avery answers the question and then goes on to give more information that isn’t asked for. The extra information comes in the form of a confusing set of words, which is either the start of him trying to build an alibi or him trying to build some vagueness in the timeline.
Once more, he talks about what usually happens when she visits, rather than what did occur on this occasion.
I: And then when she left, which direction was she going in? I mean, did she seem fine, did she seem agitated?
A:Same thing, normal. But then she went out to the road, and you know she goes to Larrabee I don't know where she goes you know after that because the field’s all open. You know, you can see… so..
He really wants us to believe it was a normal visit, doesn’t he?
He messes up when he starts talking about a singular event “she went” which then becomes multiple events “she goes”.
It’s not a great question here, asking two things at once allows him to deal with the one he is most comfortable with. In this case, he talks about where she went rather than the more personal question about her demeanour.
I: So which direction was she going in?
A: Towards Larrabee
This is the most straightforward answer in the whole interview. I’d be more comforted to hear a fuller answer, “she was going in the direction of Larrabee”
I: Did she mention any other appointments that day or anything like that?
A: Na-I don't think so. Because most time she takes a picture, then she writes down the serial number, and then she comes and collects the money and .. and that's about it.
Avery doesn’t answer the question directly. He goes back to what Teresa normally does when she visits, he has no specifics of the visit in question that he wants to share.
He finishes this answer with “that’s about it”. I didn’t like that. “That’s about it” means there is more to be said, but it isn’t being said. Given he is talking about previous visits Teresa has made, it makes me wonder if he had interactions with her on prior occasions that he wants to hide.
I: So what kinds of questions were the police asking you
A: Just when she was out here, what time around .. an’… that’s about it
“Just” is a minimising word, he wants to convince that the police didn’t ask him a lot because they don’t think he’s suspicious. He wants the police questions to appear small and casual.
He ruins that by adding “that’s about it” again, which explicitly says they asked more that he is unwilling to share.
I: Did they ask you to take a polygraph or anything like that.
A: No. No. Tonight, the cops come and asked me if I remember anything. I told ‘em no. And they asked me if they can come in the house and check the house over. I said ‘there no problem with that, come on in’ so they checked the house all over. Everything was fine and they left.
The question requires a basic yes or no answer. He supplies the “no” and goes on to tell a story of how innocent he is.
There’s a hint of “and...so” in his answer here, which suggests he is selling us a story.
I: If they asked to take a polygraph, would you, would you not?
A: I got nothing to hide, if they want me to, I don’t care. I’m just at home, work up there all day. I've barely go anywhere. Once in a while I go to Manitowoc and come back. That's about it.
This time, he doesn’t answer yes or no. He replies with bluster. He thinks he’s offering up an alibi, how could this hard-working, unsociable guy have anything to do with the disappearance? Logically, it makes no sense, but to him, he’s getting his alibi and character witness out there.
I: So, when you heard about it, how did you feel?
A: It's too close to home, something happening. It’s not good. Everybody locks their doors now around here. It’s pretty bad when something happens around here. I can see somewhere else. This is too close to home, and get a little worried and … your family.
This interview takes place the day after Teresa was reported missing, and at the time police were trying to find her.
In this reply, Avery is not open to any possibility that doesn’t involve her being killed on or near his land. While many may have feared something bad had happened to her, it was also possible she was still alive. Given the amount of time she had been missing, something bad could have happened to her miles away from Avery’s home.
Avery says explicitly that a bad thing has happened “close to home”.
He shows no empathy or concern for Teresa. Only for himself and his family.
I: Knowing her, I mean, are you what are your feelings for her parents?
A: They must be going through hell. I figure if my mom my dad and everybody else my family, they went through hell when I went to… did 18 years for something I didn't do, I figured they're going through probably the same thing because they lost some body or whatever. She’s got to be out there somewhere. Somebody should be looking.
Once more , there’s no real concern for anyone besides himself and his parents.
And, for the third time in this interview, he says he knows what has happened to Teresa. Avery says, “they lost somebody.” He doesn’t mean she’s missing, he means she’s dead.
Once he has said “they lost somebody”, Avery realises he has slipped up and bumbles out some nonsense to try to mitigate his mistake. The nonsense starts with “or whatever” and includes “somewhere” and “somebody” which makes it generic beyond meaning.
Conclusion
Avery murdered Teresa at his home. He lets slip he knows she’s dead, he lets slip that it happened close to home. Apart from revealing his guilty knowledge through leakage when he talks, he can’t say anything specific about when he last met Teresa and shows no concern for her.
He does try to construct an alibi, but it’s paper thin.
He’s in jail now, and that is exactly right.
Are there any words you’d like to look at? Leave them in the comments below.
I get exited when I get a newsletter from your blog. It’s the only newsletter I read from top to bottom.
I agree about Avery being guilty.
His whole demeanour in that documentary screamed that something was wrong with him. He seemed to have no empathy for anyone but himself, and I particularly found it worrisome that he burned a cat alive - killing animals for fun is as most of us know one of the dark triad signs.
When you’re willing to do that so casually, I won’t be surprised if you kill a young woman who turned your advances down.