Let's talk about the cat ...

[Limaes]

Sorry for taking longer than intended. My response has turned out to be quite long. So, I will post in two parts. The first part today, and the second part, when I am finished writing it, to include links, of course.

In any event, onward into the fray!

The big "but" regarding the cat incident is that I originally felt Steven Avery minimized it. Which in turn, plays an extremely important role with regard to his underlying psychology as it relates to the potential of being a killer.

However, after reading this report over, several times over, in fact, there are so many incongruences!

His codefendant, Jerry Yanda, reported the incident. So, he just what? Waltzed into the Two River's PD, to let them know? Because why? And then there's Peter Dassey who helpfully corroborates the incident. And finally, there's Kenneth Petersen, himself.

Petersen was a 33 year old officer with the Manitowoc County Sheriff's department back in 1982, when he was informed by the Two Rivers PD regarding said incident.

And this bit is extremely important. Why?

For starters, the idea that someone killed a cat by burning it to death is understandably horrific. The claim that it was doused in oil and gas makes it an order of magnitude worse. Except. That is all it is. A claim.

This is not to discount that a cat was burned alive, rather question the events as reported by Jerry Yanda (who was conveniently not convicted) & Peter Dassey.

That is, imnsho, Kenneth Petersen's view of Avery as public enemy #1, was cemented the day he learned of the cat incident. This is not to say he was unaware of other Avery legal problems, however, this was the one that cinched it for him.

Now, add to the above, he is also the very man who arrested Avery for the false rape conviction. And, who knew about the 1995 call, as revealed in the Dr. Phil episode (@1:40). And, he testified in the pre-trial hearing that he wasn't really sure Avery was innocent for the rape (Making A Murderer, episode 4 @ 42:26).

This same said man stated to the media, paraphrased, "if they wanted to get rid of Avery, they could have just killed him" (Making a Murderer, episode 4 @ 35:26). And, in that same episode, he stated that Avery would "kill again."

In other words, by 2005, he's totally steamed. Here's a guy, Avery, who not only has his rape conviction overturned but has the audacity to sue the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department?

Even so, this really isn't about Kenneth Petersen, as a single individual, per se.

Rather, it is to point out that his views epitomize the department he worked for, and eventually became leader, of. And this was a department that long viewed Steven Avery as an anathema to Manitowoc county. So strong were these "shared" beliefs, that they were more than happy to frame an innocent man in 1985, while allowing the real rapist to continue preying upon, and raping, women.

Simply put, I am of the quite strong opinion that Manitowoc County Sheriff Department internalized Avery as the county's pariah. That he ran his cousin (and wife of part-time MCSD deputy), Sandra Morris, off the road, and brandished a shotgun, confirmed their view that the guy was bad news, and worth taking out. Even if it meant framing (literally, ala the framed sketch) him for the 1985 rape that he did not commit.

Now, fast forward to 2005. Having found other supporting documentation, I will cover the 2005 bit in part 2. The key in this part is to consider the long-standing mentality of the MCSD as it pertains to Steven Avery, as a whole.

Whew, that was long. Hopefully I didn't just add to the confusion.

Footnotes:

1. I am sure I read the cat report before. There's just so much out there. Importantly, I was not yet familiar with the various names!

2. For the tl;dr folk. Think of it like this. I am of the very strong opinion that MCSD is cultish when it comes to Steven Avery.
​

You have obviously put a lot of thought and research into this and, in some part, I agree with you.

Peterson obviously did not like SA. As a point of reference it's like a school teacher having a dislike for a naughty student and nothing that student does from that point on will change that.

However, just when do we blame Steven Avery for what Steven Avery has done? He purposely coated the cat in accelerant and set it on fire. Why must we go over the report with a magnifying glass looking for someone else to blame or pointing the finger at those who reported it? Maybe the reason they dobbed him in is a simple one...he is an *advertiser censored**hole.

We all know he used his car to run a woman off the road. This woman had her young child in the car with her at the time and then tried to abduct her. She saved herself, and the child, by telling him that the child would die if left in the car alone in the cold all night. Does the fact that she was married to a Sheriff's Deputy mean that he should not be punished? Even family of LE are entitled to justice when someone tries to harm them. He was arrested because he broke the law, not because the victim was married to a LEO or because the cops didn't like him.

Looking at his history, there comes a point where his disregard for life, both human and animal can not be ignored and he, and only he, is to blame for where he is right now.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Sorry for taking longer than intended. My response has turned out to be quite long. So, I will post in two parts. The first part today, and the second part, when I am finished writing it, to include links, of course.

I'm just wondering if you psychoanalyze all of us on here, like this too??? LOL :crazy:

Very well stated, by the way!

 

[pittie_mcclure]

There's a slippery slope. People who are animal hoarders are charged with animal cruelty because usually the animals are not cared for properly. That said, the vast majority actually love their animals and have no intention of harming them.

This past Christmas a guy in my county was charged with cruelty to animals. His crime? His dog had cancer and he couldn't afford the vet bills. He shot the dog twice in the head to put the dog out of it's misery. Prior to that the dog was well cared for.

A few years ago a pit bull came into my yard where my youngest two children were playing. The dog got in between me and my kids and I couldn't get to them. I started screaming. My brother ran over with a gun fully intending to shoot it if charged anyone. The police showed up and said he was lucky he hadn't shot the dog because it's illegal to injure or kill "domesticated" animals.

Which leads to another issue. Deer, bear, turkey, squirrels, etc. are routinely hunted down and shot. Cows, pigs, lambs have their throats slit while alive as part of the butchering process. Chickens have their heads chopped off.

Which animals do you grace with protection from cruelty? Farm animals no but domesticated animals yes? If so why should a pig on a farm have less protections than a pig living in someone's house? What about wild animals? You can shoot a wild deer but not a domesticated one? Aside from cats and dogs, should we protect hamsters, gerbils, lizards, snakes...?

Thanks for this. We may come to our conclusions differently but I totally agree with your point. To me, ALL animal cruelty is wrong and that's why I don't eat meat, dairy, eggs, use products tested on animals or wear leather or any other product that is animal derived. If you're ok with a cow or pig being tortured then brutally murdered, it's hard for me to see how a killing of a different animal is so much worse.

I have 3 dogs, I feed birds, rescue squirrels, etc. I am a huge animal advocate. Some call me sensitive and I wear the badge, sometimes proudly. I don't jive with a lot of folks in the small towns of Illinois/Wisconsin/Indiana because animals are seen differently to not all but a lot of those people. I personally don't see the difference between lighting a cat on a fire and watching it die and stalking an animal in the wild, shooting it and watching it die then cutting off its head and hanging it on your wall. Seriously.

However, are all hunters psychotic? I don't think so. I think SA took the blame for something a bunch of drunk guys did together. I don't want to be friends with SA or any of those people. But I don't like hypocrisy either.

 

[Madeleine74]

just when do we blame Steven Avery for what Steven Avery has done? He purposely coated the cat in accelerant and set it on fire. Why must we go over the report with a magnifying glass looking for someone else to blame or pointing the finger at those who reported it?

--snip--

Looking at his history, there comes a point where his disregard for life, both human and animal can not be ignored and he, and only he, is to blame for where he is right now.

Excellent points!

When did SA become the poster boy for all that is good and holy? There's a psychological need some have to make him into "the one and only victim." Take away the TH case entirely and he's still a felon. His crimes don't go away just because some want to pretend the other things he did are no big deal and, hey bygones, kids will be kids.

No, he should not be in prison *if* he is innocent of TH's murder. No one is saying he should be, certainly not me. If there's proof to exonerate him, bring it on! More power to Zellner and her team.

 

[shadowraiths]

Okay, part two. In part one, I stated that "I am of the very strong opinion that MCSD is cultish when it comes to Steven Avery." And this "cultishness" arguably explains the following.

Mark Wiegert stated in his November 3, 2005 report (Trial Exhibit 216), that he notified Manitowoc County SD. The below excerpted times are for reference.

On 11/03/05 at approximately 1730 hours, I (Inv. MARK WIEGERT of the CALUMET COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT) received a phone call from Cpl. LEMIEUX of the CALUMET COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. Cpl. LEMIEUX was requesting my assistance in locating a missing person by the name of TERESA HALBACH. I requested that Cpl. LEMIEUX respond to my office so I could speak with her reference this incident.

[...]

At approximately 1755 hours, I did make contact with CRAIG SIPPEL.

[...]

At approximately 1800 hours, I did make phone contact with STEVEN P. SCHMITZ.

[...]

Cpl. LEMIEUX and I then responded to TERESA's residence

[...]

We were allowed to take several items from TERESA's residence by her roommate, SCOTT and TERESA's parents.

[...]

At that time, I contacted MANITOWOC COUNTY SERIFF'S DEPARTMENT and spoke with Sgt. ANDREW COLBORN. I informed Sgt COLBORN we were investigating a missing person's complaint. I also informed Sgt. COLBORN that we had two residences we would like to have checked, one being the STEVEN AVERY property and the second one being the GEORGE ZIPPERER property. Sgt. COLBORN indicated to me he would go over and attempt contact with Mr. AVERY.​

From the above excerpted report, we can conclude that Mark Wiegert contacted Andrew Colborn sometime after 6:00 pm on November 3, 2005. The precise time however, is unclear, considering Colborn testified that he arrived at the Avery property sometime between 6:30 and 7:00 pm, and also, that he learned of Ms. Halbach's disappearance sometime between 6:30 and 7:00 pm.

DA Kratz (Day 7, p73):

Q. All right. After parking at that location, tell the jury what happened. By the way, about what time was this that you got there?
A. I'm guessing around 7:00, between 6:30 and 7:30.

Q. Was it light out or was it dark?
A. It was dark.​

And told Attorney Strang, that he learned Ms. Halbach was missing sometime between 6:30 and 7:00 pm.

Atty Strang (Day 7, p 172):

Q. You learned about Ms Halbach being missing at about what time?
A. Somewhere between 6:30 and 7:30.

Q. You were scheduled to get off shift at eight?
A. Yes, sir.​

Again, the above is simply to try to establish a timeline.

Moving on. On November 6, 2005, after the RAV4 was found on Avery property, Fox News reported that SA was "not considered a suspect at that time." And yet, the below excerpt from the Avery Activity Log, indicates otherwise.

Date/Time: 11/03/2005 18:34
Reference: 2005-00008844
Subject Type: SUSPECT
incident Type: HOMICIDE - NON-NEGLIGENT
ORI: WI0360000
​

Tying it all together.

When MCSD learned that Ms. Halbach was missing, and that she had visited the Avery property, imnsho, they jumped to the conclusion that SA had murdered Ms. Halbach, and as such, noted so in the Avery Activity Log.

Because of this, I would argue that it presents an arguably strong case for the defenses position: SA was framed.

That said, do I, personally, think the man was framed? While I do think evidence was planted, unless otherwise proven, I still doubt MCSD framed SA for Ms. Halbach's murder. And, again, the cremains are the primary sticking point, for me.

Even so, I think their "tunnel vision" led to some extremely questionable investigative practices, to include their handling of the cremains as well as the, imho, planting of the key, and possibly, the slug.

And herein lies the problem.

The "ends justifies the means" approach, which I believe occurred here, is especially important when a person's life is at stake. While some may argue that, since he is guilty, at least he is in prison, by excusing such behavior, by allowing the ethical line to be crossed, the danger lies in potentially convicting innocent people. This is why our system requires various checks and balances. This is why things such as "chain of custody" and, in this case, turning the investigation over to Calumet County SD, mattered.

 

[shadowraiths]

However, just when do we blame Steven Avery for what Steven Avery has done?

SA was blamed. He was charged and convicted. 7 months for the cat and 6 years for Ms. Morris off the road and brandishing the shotgun. As far as I know, no one is contesting his punishments.

When did SA become the poster boy for all that is good and holy?

In whose mind? While some may certainly see SA as a pure as the driven snow victim, I highly doubt anyone participating in this forum feels that way. I certainly do not.

Importantly, just because I, and perhaps, even others, think MCSD had their sights set on SA, and were ever waiting for the other shoe to drop, so to speak... whether it be drunk and disorderly conduct, rape, or as the case turned out to be, murder, does not negate the fact that SA is not a nice man. Likewise, him being "not a nice man," does not excuse LEOs highly questionable behavior. Just as, the false rape accusation, did not negate his other deplorable behaviors.

This is not an either-or equation, here.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

When I first saw your post title I was going to come on here and say that I am really sick and tired of talking about the cat, who died 34 years ago. But after reading your post, I am intrigued to hear what you see on there. Here are my observations:

1.) The penalty for the cruelty to animals was a maximum sentence of 9 months and/or $10K. Seeing as SA had no money at the time, it would appear as though they pretty much threw the book at him, since he served 7 months, from my recollection.
2.) I never realized that they actually sat and watched the cat burn to death. I've also read several different variations of the story, from SAs to Kratz's to the motion to enter it into evidence, etc...
3.) They state that Peter Dassey is simply a concerned citizen with no ulterior motive, however, he was at some point SAs brother in law and then ended up marrying SAs ex wife
4.) Who is this Yanda guy and was he married to Barb at some point? I know Barb's name was Janda at some point. Is it a typo or something?

Duchess--thanks for pointing that SA's ex-wife married Dassey--I forgot about that. Yanda is a typo--it was Tom Janda (Barb's ex). The whole thing with divorcing and then staying married into the family thing seems so odd to me. Wonder what the holiday's must be like. Just strange to me. I want to be far far away from my ex, but I guess that is just me.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

I have a different take on this. My son's uncle (Dad's side who I'm no longer with so no reason to make excuses for him) threw gas on pregnant cow and lit it on fire when he was 20, 21 maybe. Cow and calf both survived. Anyway, he went to jail for that along with B&E of the local high school and vandalism. That was back in '96.

He got out and cleaned up his act. He's married, has two children and runs his own farm/deer/wild animal sanctuary now. He raises deer, has taken in fawns that lost their mothers along with other animals that need taken care of that our local SPCA cannot take in. He has farm animals mostly but it's not uncommon for him to have ducks with broken wings or legs running around. My son jokes that when you pull into his uncle's driveway you feel like Evan Baxter because the animals flock to you. They do this because the guy who was convicted of animal cruelty loves and cares for them so well. Some wild animals can never go back to the wild since it would be too dangerous for them after so much human contact or injuries that would leave the animal helpless so he just keeps them. Three or four years ago the police found an animal hoarder... We are talking cats, dogs, a potbelly pig, lizards, turtles, birds, etc. Some animals the SPCA couldn't take in ended up with him.

Point is, he did a terrible thing. He paid for his crimes and turned his life around. I guess he was lucky because he got that opportunity. We have no idea if Avery would have redeemed himself.

I think the guy you pointed out is the exception to the rule. Cheers to him for him for turning his life around!

 

[missy1974]

Duchess--thanks for pointing that SA's ex-wife married Dassey--I forgot about that. Yanda is a typo--it was Tom Janda (Barb's ex). The whole thing with divorcing and then staying married into the family thing seems so odd to me. Wonder what the holiday's must be like. Just strange to me. I want to be far far away from my ex, but I guess that is just me.

Yanda is not a typo. That is his name. You can search him in the Wisconsin court records too, and it's Jerry L. Yanda.

 

[dexter75]

I, personally, haven't seen or read or interpreted a " psychological need " anywhere (here or anywhere else, really ) for SA to be made up into " the one and only victim."

You are correct. Take away the TH case, he is still a felon.

He is still a man who spent 18 years behind bars for something he was 100% NOT GUILTY of, and ALL that went with THAT circus. So, there IS that.

I agree, his crimes do NOT just go away.

I think, his RECORD, and being CONVICTED along with the TIME served for his crimes, is proof of that.

Agree also he shouldn't be locked up, AGAIN, if he is AGAIN, innocent.
JMO "

Excellent points!

When did SA become the poster boy for all that is good and holy? There's a psychological need some have to make him into "the one and only victim." Take away the TH case entirely and he's still a felon. His crimes don't go away just because some want to pretend the other things he did are no big deal and, hey bygones, kids will be kids.

No, he should not be in prison *if* he is innocent of TH's murder. No one is saying he should be, certainly not me. If there's proof to exonerate him, bring it on! More power to Zellner and her team.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

It makes me think he was guilty of killing her. Anyone who could douse their pet cat in gasoline and throw them in the fire---they are capable of anything.

He never denied doing this, as far as I know.

It was even hard for me to read about it again. It truly makes me nauseated to know someone can be this cruel/evil and inhumane to an animal who is so defenseless.

This is not normal behavior by any stretch of the imagination. To me this is a trait of a psychopath and the lure of fire is also a trait imo.. It reeks of pure evil and shows a person who has no value for life, human or animal, imo.

If it could be any worse it would be this was Avery's own pet. So the pet would come up to him affectionately wanting to be petted yet instead it is doused in oil and gas and burned alive at the amusement of Avery. This isn't some teen prank. This is diabolical and a person must be this way deep down inside and it never goes away with age, imo. It may even become more pronounced. It bothers me greatly that other bones were scattered around the junk yard. I don't believe this is the first or last pet he tortured to death for his own pleasure.

It convinces me he could and did, imo, murder Teresa and never blinked an eye also throwing her into the fire like he did his pet cat meant absolutely nothing to him either. He knew Teresa was as defenseless as the cat he sat on fire watching it die.

IMO

 

[dexter75]

We have a guy here in town ( a few, actually ) that goes back n forth with our PD all the time. You would have to see it, to believe it.
It REALLY is a game of cat & mouse. ( with this situation )
Our police department has watched him, followed him and stalked his girlfriend, ( pulling her over at random times, just hoping to find him ) allegedly.
( Felt the need to put that there )
This person goes on our LE's FB page and " taunts " them, friends pop up and play along saying " hey @@@@, I hear you moved to New Zealand!" When he may be right across the street. It's nuts!!

Cops do, watch, wait and the like. For any reason they wish, IMO
NOT ALL, of course.
They are human, ya know?

thanks for sharing shadowraiths.... that is pretty much what I got out of it too, and I appreciate you laying it out in the way you have... there has been so many documents released, but I think when it is all taken in as a whole... it really has cemented the idea that Manitowoc County Sheriff's dept really had a 'hate on' for him.

I don't understand why some people think that if the leaders of the department felt this way about him or his family, how that doesn't trickle down and somehow it has an influence on the whole department.

I have seriously considered that they were 'watching' him, waiting for him to make the wrong move. Remember how Jodi felt they were watching her all the time? and once she got picked up because she passed SA at the court house or something like that (it was in the documentary). I think it was the MCPD that was watching Allen back in 1985.... so it's not like it's not realistic to think that they (PD or SD) watch convicts/people they are concerned about. JMO


You might be interested in reading this pretrial motion as well shadowraiths. Peterson in this pretrial motion still says he has "doubts" about SA's innocence of the rape. And also interesting... he was out of town the week TH went missing.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Motion-Hearing-2006Jul05.pdf

 

[dexter75]

MANY pigs, are walked to boiling water...:tears:

Great post!

There's a slippery slope. People who are animal hoarders are charged with animal cruelty because usually the animals are not cared for properly. That said, the vast majority actually love their animals and have no intention of harming them.

This past Christmas a guy in my county was charged with cruelty to animals. His crime? His dog had cancer and he couldn't afford the vet bills. He shot the dog twice in the head to put the dog out of it's misery. Prior to that the dog was well cared for.

A few years ago a pit bull came into my yard where my youngest two children were playing. The dog got in between me and my kids and I couldn't get to them. I started screaming. My brother ran over with a gun fully intending to shoot it if charged anyone. The police showed up and said he was lucky he hadn't shot the dog because it's illegal to injure or kill "domesticated" animals.

Which leads to another issue. Deer, bear, turkey, squirrels, etc. are routinely hunted down and shot. Cows, pigs, lambs have their throats slit while alive as part of the butchering process. Chickens have their heads chopped off.

Which animals do you grace with protection from cruelty? Farm animals no but domesticated animals yes? If so why should a pig on a farm have less protections than a pig living in someone's house? What about wild animals? You can shoot a wild deer but not a domesticated one? Aside from cats and dogs, should we protect hamsters, gerbils, lizards, snakes...?

 

[Madeleine74]

I, personally, haven't seen or read or interpreted a " psychological need " anywhere (here or anywhere else, really ) for SA to be made up into " the one and only victim."

You are correct. Take away the TH case, he is still a felon.

He is still a man who spent 18 years behind bars for something he was 100% NOT GUILTY of, and ALL that went with THAT circus. So, there IS that.

I agree, his crimes do NOT just go away.

I think, his RECORD, and being CONVICTED along with the TIME served for his crimes, is proof of that.

Agree also he shouldn't be locked up, AGAIN, if he is AGAIN, innocent.
JMO "

I have and it's a pattern I've witnessed a few times over the years, not only with Avery.

SA spent 12 years behind bars for a crime he didn't commit. The first 6 years were still his to serve for trying to run his cousin off the road and threatening her with a gun. Bad direct evidence put him away for those 12 years (false eye witness testimony). DNA evidence ultimately exonerated him.

In this case there's no eye witness (aside from BD who is not believed); DNA ultimately convicted him.

If Zellner can't prove the various allegations that have been made, SA's not going anywhere and it's over.

 

[dexter75]

I wonder..
Can't help but wonder, if some have had it in for SA for a LONG time.
JMO

also interesting to note..... I checked the court records. Jerry L. Yanda was not charged for this, although he was a party to the crime according to the report.... and well, according to himself, cuz he tattled on himself LOL geesh, was this a set up too? LOL

 

[ArianeEmory]

I've been avoiding clicking this thread, but even still I was surprised to see people rationalizing animal cruelty.

I guess I shouldn't have been.

 

[missy1974]

I have and it's a pattern I've witnessed a few times over the years, not only with Avery.

SA spent 12 years behind bars for a crime he didn't commit. The first 6 years were still his to serve for trying to run his cousin off the road and threatening her with a gun. Bad direct evidence put him away for those 12 years (false eye witness testimony). DNA evidence ultimately exonerated him.

In this case there's no eye witness (aside from BD who is not believed); DNA ultimately convicted him.

If Zellner can't prove the various allegations that have been made, SA's not going anywhere and it's over.

And that false eyewitness testimony was heavily influenced by Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department employees IMO From saying that sounds like Steve Avery.... to actually drawing (tracing IMO) his mugshot photo by their "sketch artist".

12 years or 18 years.... does it make it any better? 1 day imprisoned for a crime you did not commit due to heavily influenced wrong eye witness testimony is 1 too many IMO I don't care who it is, SA or the Queen of England.

 

[Madeleine74]

If LE did have it in for SA for a long time, they totally missed their chance months or even up to a year or 2 earlier -- SA was breaking the law by having a weapon in his possession--specifically that rifle on the wall of his bedroom. It was a weapon he apparently used, but even if he never did use it, just having that gun was a big no-no and as a convicted felon, that alone would have put him back in prison for a good long time. Had cops really had it in for him all they would have to do is a random check for firearms and he would have been busted.

A convicted felon cannot legally possess a firearm and if caught doing so may be charged with a Class G felony. The felon could face up to 10 years in prison and up to $25,000 in fines.
Ref: Wisconsin Statute 941.29

 

[missy1974]

I've been avoiding clicking this thread, but even still I was surprised to see people rationalizing animal cruelty.

I guess I shouldn't have been.

I don't see anyone on here saying it's okay. Not one. Others, and myself have said.... we have experiences where different things happen, everyone brings their own experiences to websleuths... some choose to discuss them, some don't, some agree, some don't, but I don't think you will find one person here that is rationalizing it and anyone here is OKAY with animal cruelty. To imply that .... is not okay IMO

 

[missy1974]

Moving on. On November 6, 2005, after the RAV4 was found on Avery property, Fox News reported that SA was "not considered a suspect at that time." And yet, the below excerpt from the Avery Activity Log, indicates otherwise.

Date/Time: 11/03/2005 18:34
Reference: 2005-00008844
Subject Type: SUSPECT
incident Type: HOMICIDE - NON-NEGLIGENT
ORI: WI0360000
​

RSBM

As much as I agree that they targeted him and had tunnel vision.... for now... I have to disagree with this.

Here is what I think happened.... On the Thursday, November 3rd... when Wiegert called Colborn, it was assigned an incident/reference number (Reference: 2005-00008844). Colborn and then the next day Remiker and Lenk went to see SA. For whatever reason, they closed it or deactivated it... maybe because of Calumet County basically being in charge of the TH being a missing person because of her location. So they did what they were asked and they closed it. Come Saturday, when the RAV4 was found.... the reference number was reactivated (it's in the dispatch phone calls, she says "we reactivated it this morning" or something similar) So I think the subject/incident parts may have been updated as it went along and at some point before he was charged with the murder, he was a suspect in a homicide. JMO and I really don't have the time to listen to the dispatch calls at the moment to cross reference the #.