Відео

Very interesting

This is a load of psychobabble. You do realise that he’d been on the hook for a crime he’s never been found guilty of committing in Ireland for almost 30 years at this point. You seem to be approaching it as if this was his first encounter with the authorities. Anybody that had been in limbo for that long would almost naturally caveat every statement they make. Also, whether he says “the French family” for self-preservation by othering them in the minds of the Irish or if it was actually xenophobic (or otherwise) is irrelevant. Just because he might not be a “nice person” in your view, does not mean he’s guilty!

I don’t think he is worrying about too much considering he passed away in January 2024.

Both parents covering for the son👍🏻

As terrible as Scott is,I wonder about Laci as a person ( this has nothing to do with the murder) but he's very shallow & even if he puts the act of being the perfect guy,I can't help but wonder if she was a little shallow also because I'm sure he talked the same way to her. Surface sweet talk wouldn't be enough for me. Just because she was a good person & a victim does not make her perfect. Why wouldn't she want a person with more depth. If that mattered to her, believe me,she would of noticed. Everyone doesn't care about having a deep person for a partner. Yes,they would want someone that cares about them but I mean a person that you can have meaningful conversation with exc. If she wanted that she would not have picked Scott. There's just so much a person can fake. I have known people that are surface. Some friends for example you can tell them everything & they care. There's other people that may be interesting,talking about music,movies exc,But never how you are feeling,stuff like that. I can smell a phoney person a Mile away.

Did U do analysis of Sterns interview? I can't find any.

Mother pimped out her daughter to keep SS coming back. She was jealous of her and was glad SS unalived her. She tried to cover up for him. Poor girl didn't deserve this.

He just constantly avoids responsibility

He acts like it was a random decision to go fishing (Scott: it was too cold to play golf so I decided to go fishing), but he had already bought a fishing license for that day.

What kind of husband lets his heavily pregnant wife walk the dog and do all the cleaning? Also, if it’s too cold to golf, it’s too cold to fish.

He’s guilty AF-even if he gets a new trial, the result will be the same.

Thank you

'Assume' is a mental process that is less reliable than a material one and which, by definition, concedes fallibility, making the projected clause extra unreliable. Thus, the question is, what is unreliable about [[ it would be a decent << you know>> shallow area]] . Scott hesitates to link decent with shallow, interrupting the collocation with << you know>>. It would appear that Scott's mental process was engaged with looking for a 'decent' area and that 'shallow' was not it.

Thank you again! Always an interesting listen!!

Thank you ❤ for your algorithm.

I have to play devils advocate here... Because this reading into his words.. is so subjective and speculative... and therefore it is not valid, reliable or reliable in any way shape or form. I think you haven't touched on their own unique dialect and the fact that the Avery's have their own mother tounge almost, and we shouldn't dismiss this is, as it's very relevant and therefore it's really quite dangerous to interpret what he is saying when the way he speaks is quite novel? The fact you keep saying he refers to previous experience and interactions is a red flag.... He could simply be thinking back in his mind to whether there was anything unsual this time?. He could just be emphasising the fact it was normal.... because it was... and therfore he had no new insight to help the investigation.? You start by saying the ASY was the last visit.. We dont actually know this 100%. (We don't know for sure that she went to the Zipperer's). You fail to mention that SA has previously had an 18 yr wrongful convicton which is bound to make him appear nervous or guarded... That is of upmost relevance when interpreting non verbal amd verbal body language.... Using the past tense is not an immediate red flag... He knew she was missing.. Therefore it is perfectly accepatable to refer to the past... It doesn't mean he killed her and knows she is not coming back. Afterall..her brother Mike Halbach was already "grieving" during the search process before Pam Of God performed her miracle. You select the fact he says she comes out "all the time" as an issue but can you see that potentially shows he is not afraid to show how well he knows her... He is not underplaying how many times he has met her or disassociating/distancing from her? Regarding his statement about putting it in tne book, being in past tense.. That is a completely normal thing to say.. Again, describing what she would have done previously... I think that is a more than acceptable and reasonable response. If someone asked me about someone... I would likely refer to what we did typically.. We went for lunch every Friday.. for example.. There is literally nothing tsee here.. He was just memory recalling? And the referring to using the book about a yr is simply showing the direct correlation between how long he has known her (because he has known her since he used the book). He was simply thinking back to that. He represents the book with her. Thats normal and really teaching, tbh if you don't think you would think of an experience relating to a person. The fact he doesn't comment on get personality.. perhaps its because he didnt know.. She only ever visited for 5 minute picture taking.. in a business capacity.. Could you get to know someones personality in 5 mins a few times? Or maybe she had little personality? (Unremarkable). "Thats about it" is a phrase I use regularly... especially in an interview when Ive said all I can think of... when I've literally nothing else in me.. yet here you are implyimg the opposite . And making assu.ptiond that it's the opposite and that it means there is definitely more to it???? Thats a huge leap! I know I say it when I have nothing more on me. ??? You seem upset if he elaborates (like the cops coming to look round the house)... but equally upset if he doesn't??? And pulling someone down for using the words "so" and "and" too many times and that it implies story telling.. is really quite strange in my opinion! Regards the polygraph.. "I've got nothing to hide" might be his way of saying yes..'yes, I've got nothing to hide'. I find this hanging on every word as though we all speak the same, really quite strange tbh! The omission of the actual word "yes".. does not mean by any stretch of the imagination mean he hasn't directly answered the question! Of course, you'll know he did in fact a more scientifc test than a polygraph and pased it. If someone goes missing.. something has happened. I don't understand the massive play on words on "something has happened". It's like putting words in his mouth. And "lost" somebody... missing is lost . Maybe he meant lost as in tne physical sense of the word? She is lost... as in missing.. "Too close to home" could simply be him admitting he is scared he is going to be wrongly incarcerated for something he didn't do... again!!!!! Manitowoc County law "professionals" are known for being corrupt and involved in clubs etc. Anyone would be scared. Nice try and interesting view but this is why we have to look to science and evidence rather than subjective, circumstantial points of view. Minimising is also not a reliable way of judging somone. Because this is judging. If someone was by my side and then they weren't.. when I turned round for example.. I might say... "one minute she was there. The next she wasn't. And that's it'. Sometimes the less we say, the more truth we are speaking. But nobody knows..That's the point. And that is why the coppers should have done a proper investigation and there should have been a fair trial...because the consequences are this.. trying to interpret people through words. Not fair. Too subjective for me, sorry.

❤

All the detail ... It's like when an author creates an amazing backstory and tries to cram too much of it in the story story. He worked to come up with it and he wants to show it off.

Not very good lier's because I can see right through them because she was jealous of summer

If she knows summer didn't go wondering off then she More then likely knows what happened to her and she is lieing about everything

Very flat affect indeed. Thanks for 28:00, it’s a great reminder that vague words aren’t always 🚩 🚩 🚩, that we need to mind the context! He also starts it off by the verb ”feel”, which to my understanding USUALLY is stronger/more truthful than think/believe. Would you agree?

”In front of my..our house” 🏡? 😬

YEY! I picked up on the my/our issue, too! I find the info about pronoun usage (or lack thereof) interesting information that I never seem to pick up on. It is definitely telling where someone wants you to focus when they're telling a story. I'm going to look at things I've written in the past to see what pops out as the main point (intended or not). Your videos are all masterclasses!

he asked if the caller was at MY, then changes to OUR house in the call he received. He all of a sudden remembers that he isn't supposed to know Laci is dead.

Brilliant, well analysed

Too cold for golf would be also too cold for fishing

Same storytelling speech pattern as Stephan Sterns, same tone and inflection

No one shares a cereal bowl with anyone else

He wasn't asked what Laci did or had for breakfast

9:47 "I think" 47:21 "I know" Could it be that the juror's use of the words has nothing to do with how certain she feels about what she is saying but rather it's just her answering the questions? At 9:47 she was asked about thinking and at 47:21 she was asked about knowing.

If you picked up a note you can say I just got the note, nothing unusual there.

Look up Fitsnews juror 630 and read the story written about me I'm the ex husband who reported my Ex-wife. This is a cover up

I think you nailed the analysis on this one. Thanks!

Excellent content as usual. I subscribed immediately upon hearing you doing a show with Jay.