Manitowoc Locals At Starbucks Hostile to Alternative Theories

Featured Video Play Icon

I went to Starbucks earlier today, and heard a family talking about Making A Murderer.  The view was unanimously expressed that Steven Avery is guilty.  When I heard this, I asked them how they could be so sure.  An elderly woman began to engage my question, but was immediately cut off by her daughter who, speaking for the group, said they weren’t going to talk about it because their family was “personally involved”.  OF course I wanted to know how, but they were unwilling to say.  I told them that back in 1985 when everyone was so sure of Avery’s guilt, it turned out that they were wrong , and that should give everyone pause this time, even thought it doesn’t.

“Oh Steven Avery did that one too!  The pubic hair that belonged to Gregory Allen was found on a beach towel, and he used to go to that beach often.  Penny Beernsten, despite what she says publicly, still has serious doubts about his innocence”.  I was only a little surprised to hear this, and I got the impression that this woman knows Penny Beernsten on a personal level.

We went back and forth for awhile.  The hood latch came up, and they asked how his DNA ended up “all over the crime scene”.  But as soon as I began to answer, I was cut off, and whenever I asked a question, it went unanswered.

Eventually, I pulled out my cell phone and began recording the interaction.  Once again, I found the locals afraid to express their views on camera.  As the party got up to leave, I asked them how they felt about Brendan Dassey, and if they were as sure of his guilt as they were of Steven Avery’s.  Again, they refused to say any more.

As I was walking back in the Starbucks, an employee dressed in a balloon told me to come back into the store, and that the police were called.  I went back into the store as she asked, and asked her why she called the police.  She wouldn’t answer, and eventually came back out to say that I could stay, and that they weren’t calling the police after all.

As I was headed back to my chair, another Starbuck’s employee approached me and asked me not to be “disruptive”, and I said that was fine.  I went back to where I was sitting, but within ten minutes, the woman you see in the video came up to me for some reason to repeat what the others had said.  This time I had my phone ready and recorded the entire session.  She didn’t like that and asked me to leave.  I complied.



  • I’m kind of with anon on this one…it would be intimidating to a group of women to have a big guy step into their conversation and persist to debate it..not sure what all of these videos are accomplishing..there’s a right way to do this but it doesn’t look like this. There’s only one rule that I know of, babies – God damn it, you’ve got to be kind.

  • Whenever I call customer service or the offices of a corporate or government agency, I get the message that the call is being recorded. You don’t have a choice, and you have no idea what happens to this information once you are done with the call. If you object, the call ends.

    What if you tell the corporation that is recording YOU, that you are recording them? I’ve tried this several times. Guess what happens? They’ll tell you that they don’t agree to be recorded. Try it for yourself and see what happens.

    In American society we are brainwashed to distrust the individual, and to trust the power of corporations. You’ll never fully realize this until you record someone somewhere that they’re already being recorded by twenty other cameras. But yours is the only one they’ll care about.

    I’m not against corporations, by the way. But I am for the individual.
    The surveillance society is still in its embryonic state and will continue unimpeded as devices become radically smaller and more powerful. At some point the implements of surveillance will be as tiny as dust motes, and we will all be naked before the world literally and figuratively. At that point we may wish to wonder what we might have lost by the innocence we’ve gained.

    • “If you object, the call ends.” Exactly.

      • What do you mean by “exactly”?

        • Companies are required to announce that they are recording phone calls. By not hanging up, you consent to be recorded (even if grudgingly). On the other hand, you continued to record this woman after telling her that you had stopped. Then you posted it on the Internet. That’s what I meant by “exactly.” You have a great respect for free speech but apparently none for the concept of privacy.

    • For the record I live in a one party consent state for a reason. I record ALL business related calls and I do not have to inform anyone because only my consent is required. I don’t see the need to tell them as it will only be antagonistic.

      • I wasn’t aware it was a state by state law re recording in the US. That is the case in Australia as well. Some states allow one-party knowledge recording. If one of the parties in the conversation (by telephone at least) is aware, then there is no problem. If NO party in the conversation is aware, i.e. there is a warrentless wiretap, then that is illegal. Note: warrantless. It doesn’t mean law enforcement isn’t recording, but they’ve had to go before a judge to get permission with probable cause.

        Daniel, if you’re going to persist in Wisconsin, it would be a good idea to read up on recording law, photo law, and not just guess. Telecommunications is different from “public” spaces, too. Private property is not public space.

    • Daniel, are you still in WI? I am curious what you’ve learned so far. I’ve been reading theories but am so confused. I’m close by but was t sure if you went home yet.

  • Honestly, man, I support you looking into things and the search for justice in general, but you really do need to take a look at your tactics.

    You could, and probably should have, been arrested for harrassment and trespassing. Trespassing on private property and filming people against their wishes is illegal, not to mention rude. And then you post the video online despite her repeatedly asking not to be filmed. It’s a very scumbag move, dude.

    • Every person who walks into any Starbucks anywhere in the world is being recorded. Yet, woe be to the individual (and NOT the corporation) should he or she choose to exercise the same right. Your comment only indicates how disturbingly lost we are. First of all, anonymous, why the fuck are you anonymous if you trust corporate power so much? What are you afraid of? Do you just do it because everyone else does it? Why should you not wish to have your words associated with your identity? Who wants us to live in this much fear, and why do we obey? Take off your mask!! Second, where do you get your false legal information? It is NOT illegal to film someone against their wishes. Lastly, quit being so goddamned weak. Don’t tell me you support me and then bring this nonsense. I’d rather not have your support. The individual has power. You are an individual. Use your fucking power, and quit whining. Take the streets. Hoist a banner. Get in someone’s face. Ask questions. Make allies. Make enemies. Bring your heart and your balls into it. Quit being critical. Fight fight fight with all your might and never give up.

      • Surely you recognize the difference between surveillance video to be used in the case of a crime which is why a business has it up and the reasons you where taking video. There is a huge difference.

        • We don’t know what they use if for. They can use if for anything they want. Are you seriously going to challenge me on this one? You’re going to lose. I know that you’re invested in challenging me for some reason even though I have no interest in that. I simply need you to use your brain for a second. Can you please try to do that for a second and let go of your ego?

        • No, you need to check your ego. On this, private citizens yes, I am going to challenge you. With what you described it sounds you you scared the crap out of the patrons and the employees picked up on it and called you back into the store in fear of the safety of the ladies you followed out.

          While your intentions I do believe we’re harmless and in the pursuit of justice, your ego and ambition are blinding you a bit.

          Personally I love what you did with sweaty Kratz but even on that you pushed the limits with yelling and filming thru not one but two mail slots.

          If the cops are watching your antics and since you put yourself on their radar I’m sure they are, you are just giving them ammo to set up a good case for harassment, stalking, menacing and I’m sure they can find a few other things to tack on.

          You need to reevaluate your tactics.

          At the bar, the owners weren’t thrill with you but the patrons obviously didn’t mind talking to you. That was a big difference from the situation at Starbucks.

        • No I won’t lose on this Daniel. You just have a major issue with a woman challenging you.

        • That’s the last refuge of a scoundrel, I’m afraid. And to show you exactly how much respect I have for women, I will not pull my punches either.

        • You already have.

  • For those who read the records, SA took the afternoon off when TH was coming to take a picture of a vehicle. I wonder if he took the same time off the other 5 times she came over to take a picture. My bet is he did not. That would be strike number 1 for SA.

    He never mentioned that he had a bonfire on Oct. 31 when he was arrested. He detailed everything else he did that day, but no mention of a bonfire that lasted for hours. Strike 2.

    Who was the harrasing caller that TA’s photography boss witnessed? He asked but she said don’t worry about it. This could be easily found out through her phone records since it was about a week before she went missing. My gyes is that it was NOT SA or Krate would have hilighted in the trial.

    These are the facts that should be discussed here.

    • Youre getting things WAY mixed up.

      • KJ is not mixed up at all. I was stunned to learn how much Steven Avery talked to the cops in early November, even after his lawyer told him not to! Especially in light of what had happened to him with the false rape conviction! Anyway, he talked a lot. If you scrutinized those records, you would know that what KJ says is exactly true. In fact, it’s more damning against Steven Avery than even KJ’s post indicates.

        If you’re not afraid of the truth, check out Read page 1 to convince yourself that Steven Avery did not return to work that day.

        In about the middle of the page 3, find, “Steven was asked about leaving work at 11:00 A.M. […],” and continue reading: “Steven said they [i.e., his family] did not know that he was not coming back after lunch and that they would have cared. Steven said that it is not expected that he be able to come and go as he pleases from work and that this was the first time.” (Strike 1.)

        In other words, Steven Avery himself admitted that he had never taken a half day off from work before. October 31, 2005, was the first and only time ever, according to Steven Avery himself!

        If you think the cops manipulated this report, listen to, starting at about 32:10. If you listen for a minute or so, you will hear it from Steven Avery.

        Also, on page 3 Steven Avery stated that he hadn’t burned anything in 2 weeks. (Strike 2.)

        So KJ was not mixed up at all.

        • In the same light, add the two calls where SA was making sure if TH was coming.

          He has the rest of the day off so what’s the hurry to get a picture taken that will take 5 minutes (SA said it was Hi, Bye).

          SA stated all he did that afternoon was watch tv, listen to the radio… What is the urgency to get the picture taken THAT day, let alone that afternoon?

          Have we all not experienced episodes in our lives where an appointment fell through?

          And since he had never done this before in all the times TH came there to take a picture, I believe that shows premeditation.

          I continue to read the transcripts and as I do, will be developing an excel spreadsheet with significant facts and cross those with who it may incriminate.

          Then and only then can an unbiased opinion be formed as to the most likely suspect.

        • Making a Murderer affected me greatly. It was masterfully put together. I was outraged, as so many of us were. However, the more I read, the more I can’t help but feel that Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey did it. It’s not one thing. It’s dozens of things that continue to pile up.

          Here’s one tidbit. When Brendan was first interviewed, he said that Teresa Halbach was only there 5 minutes. If he first saw her vehicle when he got off the bus, how could he possibly know how long she had been there already? I think Brendan is just parroting Steven Avery’s storyline. (Steven also said she was only there 5 min.) There’s no way Brendan could know how long she was there. I suspect that they got their stories straight that weekend in Cravitz at the cabin. Note that they planned the trip and started arriving there before the RAV4 was discovered.

          Another thing that bugs me: Blaine testified that the area where Teresa’s remains were found had never been used for a bonfire before. Halloween night was the very first time. Yet Steven was trying to organize another bonfire there for later that week with the cousins and their friends. It never materialized.

          Another bonfire would really help Steven, if that area had never been used for a fire before. Another fire would establish that area as a known fire pit, as witnesses could attest. It would look less suspicious, making it less likely that the cops would want to pay attention to it. Perhaps Blaine mispoke in his testimony, but it sure seems fishy to me.

          One last one. Kayla went to a school counselor in January to say that one of the cousins had been asked by Steven Avery to help move a body. Kayla also asked her counselor if blood could rise up out of concrete. This bizarre question can’t be blamed on coercive questioning. In February the police, motivated by Kayla’s reports, interviewed her. She said that Brendan had seen body parts in the fire! This was before they put the squeeze on Brendan (starting on February 27).

          It’s possible that the cops put the squeeze on her, too. I haven’t heard audio of this interview. But how could the cops get so many family members to incriminate Steven Avery? I can understand Brendan only, but there are several who eventually admitted to seeing a fire at Steven’s that night. It’s hard for me to imagine so many family members conspiring to frame Steven, especially after denying having seen a fire originally. It seems more likely that they were initially lying to protect him.

          Anyway, these things just keep piling up for me.

  • If you know Daniel you know he is polite and well mannered and also not good with cell phones! He didn’t even have on landscape when filming. There is a chance he thought he presssed off and didn’t. Please lighten up on him anon 6. You are a troll he lets come on site. Remember that.

    • Did he accidentally post it on his website, too?

    • Um no, I’m not going to let up. He’s not as un ept as you think he is or try to say he is.

    • Either you are an alter ego or you are a girlfriend.

      Give it up!!!!

      I am not a troll!! You just don’t like anyone questioning Daniel and his “tactics”.

      If he acts underhandedly then he is no better than the rest and his character can be called into question like the rest.

      Keep it on the up and up, be honest and the truth will come out.

      • Doesn’t seem like you have much to say about anything unless it’s about me. It becomes tiresome.

        • Daniel if you are being honest and upfront I’ll support you since I do not think Avery or Dassey got a fair trail. If you are gong to be underhanded I’m going to call you out.

      • Anon 6, yes, you are the definition of a troll. He lets you come on this blog.

  • Why would he have to be honest with her about stopping recording? She’s in a public area, why should she expect privacy? Neither should the Starbucks customers, unless Daniel was following them back to their vehicles and getting in with them perhaps?

    • Because she was the manager and his actions were making the employees and customers uncomfortable and it sounded like he did follow some customers out of the store.

      If people don’t mind being recorded that is one thing but if they ask you to stop then you stop. These people are not public figures.

      • People are recorded everywhere. But it’s only a problem when an individual as opposed to a corporation does it. Do you really comprehend what you’re saying?

        • Now you’re personalizing it but okay let’s go there.

          A group of women are sitting at Starbucks enjoying a Latte and talking about MaM when some dude at an adjoining table butts in and strikes up some convo. At first it’s friendly convo but he quickly becomes argumentative to their beliefs, politely but starting to feel a bit creepy. This stranger continues and whips out a camera. They get up to leave and the 6’2″ tall wide shouldered stranger begins to follow them out of the store. This is all observed by staff and other guests at Starbucks.

          Maybe, just maybe it more about that and less about MaM.

          (I don’t know my name was dropped off my browser but yes that was my post).

        • BTW, I hope you have an alibi for last night. No, I’m. To implying you did anything!

    • Because it’s not a public area, it’s a private business?

  • Brid get Moriarty

    Why don’t you think Mr Zipperer did it .
    He thought Teresa Halbach was a trespasser and shot her in the head 3 tomes.

  • We are all being recorded 247. There are hidden cameras everywhere.
    And regarding the manager…..You cannot expect privacy where there is no privacy. She has her nerve.

  • Be careful, Lenk and Colburn might go to that SB…
    They’ll get your DNA off your discarded latte cup, and next thing you know, Ken Kratz (“DA LadyVoice”) will be texting you!!

  • Small towns in Wisconsin are typically like this. Maybe you don’t have a lot of experience with living in a small town like that? The police will “hound” you and they can make your life hell. It really does feel like there is no freedom of speech in small town Wisconsin.

    I live in Wisconsin, in a small town, where many things that are “supposed to happen” never do. A small town murder comes to mind up north, where the woman was supposed to reveal some fraud/shady government deals and she was all the sudden murdered. Police kept saying they were close to solving it, but nothing has ever come out.

    I had believed that Avery and Dassey were guilty, just from the media coverage in my area. After watching the documentary though I have done a 180. I feel so bad for them and their families. I also hope that Teresa’s family will seek the truth and not just go with what the government has told them.

  • What are these people afraid of?!?! What authority told them that freedom of speech does not apply in Manitowoc? Or any basic freedom for that matter. Who has their boots shaking? As if merely discussing Steven’s obvious unfair trail and high likelihood of false imprisonment will have you in prison as well! I shutter to think of what empty threat has made American tax paying people abandon their natural and basic rights of freedom. Never stop asking questions.

  • Not cool that you told her you stopped recording yet continued to record.

    • Anon 106:

      You look exactly like a horse when you look down your nose like that. Nothing worthwhile to contribute I presume?

      • I agree with Anon #106. Very uncool to lie to people. Very uncool. Have you noticed a pattern? Daniel seems to alienate everyone, including the Averys and Steven Avery’s new attorney. I would suggest that Daniel bury himself in the official record instead of posting these articles that contribute absolutely nothing to solving the crime. Many of the questions that he poses here are found in the official record.

        • Thank you for the validation. Someone finally sees what I’ve been trying to say.

          Daniel if you want to make a point you need to make it above the standards and not sink to the standards.


        • Parminides:
          You resemble a horse too. You know, the great thing about this site is that it’s just a public website. You can leave anytime you want, you don’t HAVE to read it, and most importantly you don’t have to comment. Yet you do. To let others know when they break your rules, to make yourself feel better and you try to appear genuine but we know you’re just being a butthead for no reason. People like you, who never lie of course, baffle me. Just stop coming to this site if you don’t like what you see, we won’t miss you even a little bit. So go.

        • You guys look like horses, looking down your noses at the Manitowoc Sheriff’s Department and Ken Kratz. Why don’t you quit judging them? If it makes you feel any better, I wonder why I’m still here, too.

        • We will try not to judge you for judging our judging.

      • I think ken Kratz is a scum.

        I think Steven did not get a fair trail.

        I not 100% Steven is innocent.

        But Daniel needs to do things on the up and up or he is not better than the rest. He said he stopped recording when in fact he did not.

        Be honest or he is no better than the rest. Just be honest.

        I know he has an uphill battle. But it is th battle in the long run that will give him redemption he wants…..but only if it is honest.