POST 31: Investigation Report - Pages 2 and 3 (Matthew Knuth)

Investigation Report Pages 2 and 3 - Matthew Knuth

On page 1 of the investigation report, Matthew Knuth was listed as an "involved person" and "witness." On page 2 and beginning of page 3, the Game and Fish investigation report referenced only some of the statements made by Matthew Knuth.

What we have learned from POST 6 in my blog, Knuth was the only witness who provided an official statement to Game and Fish who believed my walleye was foul-hooked. He admitted he was't sure the walleye was foul-hooked and "never saw the hook" in the walleye, but "later put 2-and-2 together" and believed the walleye was snagged in part because it "didn't fight quite right." You can listen to his entire official statement here: https://youtu.be/FRH3sFjwhPA.

Below are page 2 and 3 of the Investigation Report by Game and Fish where Knuth's statements are referenced:

Page 2 of the Investigation Report. Statements made by Knuth are highlighted. 

Page 3 of the Investigation Report. Statements made by Knuth are highlighted. 

If you can't read the images, here is what is in the report:

"On April 21, 2019 the general info email received an email from Matthew Knuth. The email stated: I was two guys down from the record that was caught and it was being pulled in by the tail when she would come to the surface. His buddy said the hook came off in the net and it was wrapped in the line but I’m positive it was a snagged I seen a lot of fish snagged out their and the snagged all came to the top and we’re dragged in from the side and tail and this fish came in from the tail and didn’t really fight as much as you would of though a fish that size would of."

• Knuth failed to mention he was 200 feet away when the walleye was actually netted and caught - not "two guys down." 
• Knuth failed to mention the walleye fought like a normal walleye for over 2 minutes and 30 seconds before it gave up and surfaced. And during that time, it fought underwater, pulled drag and did the characteristic head-shakes of a walleye which was documented in video evidence. 
• When the walleye surfaced (after 2 minutes and 30 seconds), it did not appear to be "pulled in by the tail" and fought its way back under the water several times.
• Even though Gibbs stated he didn't see the hook, he did believe, "the hook came off in the net" as reference by Knuth. 
• I believe the walleye put up a good fight and fought longer than what I expected. 

"On April 22, 2019 Winkelman talked to Knuth by telephone. The call was recorded on a digital voice recorder. Knuth stated the following:" 

"Knuth was fishing right next to the Volk group." 
Knuth arrived at 2:45pm squeezing in between Gibbs and one other person further upstream. Knuth began casting into the same slack-water hole Gibbs and I had been casting into. The record walleye bit my hook and started fighting just before 2:54pm. Knuth was next to me for less than 9 minutes before I began fighting my record walleye. He did not move from his original spot on the shore as the fish fought and made its way downstream. He was 200 feet away when the walleye was caught and netted.


"Knuth had been fishing at that location since Thursday."
Why was Knuth fishing "that location" since Thursday when he stated in his official statement the area should be "coned off" because the fish are being "snagged" and are getting "chunks taken out of them" and "they don't want to live anymore?" Here are the sound clips from Knuth's official statement: https://youtu.be/xxZWS4ZRHPk.


"Knuth witnessed numerous fish snagged in the back or tail."
Did Knuth provide any evidence to support this claim? Who was snagging fish? What kind of fish? He was next to me for less than 9 minutes before I caught my big walleye. These points were never clarified. Again, the walleye we caught were hooked in the mouth as documented by photo evidence.


"Knuth witnessed the Volk group snag several fish earlier that day. The fish were snagged in the back."
Did Knuth provide any evidence to support this claim? Knuth was fishing next to me for less than 9 minutes before I caught the big walleye. And in those 9 minutes, I have images of two walleye which were caught and hooked in the mouth. Knuth was in the background of one of those images.

Witness Knuth who appears in the background of the image with my son.

"Knuth stated that as the record fish was being reeled in it was tail first towards the rod and he could see that when it broke the surface."

Did Knuth provide any evidence to support this claim? Knuth failed to tell the investigator the walleye was fighting normal for over 2 minutes and 30 seconds where it remained underwater, pulled drag and conducted head-shakes. When the walleye broke the surface, it never appeared to be "reeled in tail first towards the rod" and it fought its way back underwater several more times before being netted. 

"Knuth stated the fish acted like a log and he could see no head shake in the rod." 

Did Knuth provide any evidence to support this claim? The walleye conducted several head-shakes during the fight. Here are video clips of the record walleye fighting: https://youtu.be/7d1njtAZtlg. Many people often describe big walleyes fight like a “log” as they are being reeled in. In fact, those are the exact words Neil Leier used to describe how his record walleye fought: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/05/23/whopper-walleye-breaks-north-dakota-longest-standing-fish-record. Leier stated, "It hit, and it hit hard, but it didn't fight a lot. Took me about a minute to bring it in. It just drug in like a log." 

"Knuth stated that he could not see the hook in the fish but when the fish was netted it was head downstream, tail towards the rod, being pulled in backwards."

Did Knuth provide any evidence to support these claims? Knuth admitted he couldn't see the hook in the walleye even through he said he could see the fish as it surfaced. If my walleye would have been foul-hooked in the "tail" or "back," witnesses should have been able to see the hook in that location as it fought. Considering witnesses couldn't see the hook as it fought, it would indicate the hook was in the mouth. When the walleye was netted, the head was upstream and pointing towards me which would indicate the walleye was hooked in the mouth being pulled from the head.  

"Knuth thought it was snagged near the tail end of the body."

Did Knuth provide any evidence to support this claim? The taxidermist report confirmed there was no hole from a hook in the tail, body, back or fins of the walleye and stated, "it could not have been hooked there." The taxidermist confirmed the only fresh tear or hole from a hook is in the upper jaw of the walleye. 

"Knuth stated the netter was out on a sandbar but he had a good visual of it."

The investigator did not ask Knuth how far away he was when the walleye was netted, nor did Knuth explain to the investigator how far away he was when the walleye was netted. Knuth didn't move from his original location when the walleye was netted placing him at approximately 200 feet away which was 60 feet further than where the image below was taken. What did Knuth have a good visual of at his distance? 

"Knuth stated he was standing 15 to 20 feet away from Volk maybe closer."

When Knuth started fishing, he was maybe 20 feet upstream from me. But, when my big walleye was caught and netted, he didn't move from his spot and was 200 feet away. This was never clarified by Knuth or the investigator.

"Knuth stated people on the back were booing Volk saying let it go."

Did Knuth provide any evidence to support this claim? Here are the sound clips from Knuth's official statement where he talked about people booing: https://youtu.be/gUBBSQTtb7g. If people were "booing" as "ecstatically" as what Knuth stated, shouldn't I have heard it? Shouldn't it have been heard in the two videos which were recorded? Neither me, my wife or Gibbs heard people booing, and neither of the videos recorded people booing. 

"Knuth stated he talked to the guy who netted the fish because he came back and fished with him and he said you guys (Game and Fish) never asked him if the fish was snagged or not and he said the hook came out in the net when he netted the fish and the fish was all wrapped up in the string."

Did Knuth provide any evidence to support his claims? Even though Gibbs stated he never saw the hook, he believed "the hook came out in the net when he netted the fish and the fish was all wrapped up in the string." I believed Gibbs stated this to me which is why I said what I said to the media. In Gibbs's official statement, the investigator never asked Gibbs what he believed and specifically refrained from asking Gibbs what he believed and why he believed what he did. Did Game and Fish prove the walleye didn't get wrapped up in the string and spit the hook when it was netted? 

"Knuth then stated that the netter told him he could not say where it was hooked because the hook came out in the net and he did not see where it was hooked."

Gibbs stated he "never saw the hook in the fish." If a person nets a fish and can't see the hook on the outside of the body anywhere, where is the only place it could have been? Yes, in the mouth. Gibbs believed the walleye was caught legally. When the walleye was netted, Gibbs stated several times I needed to "mount the walleye." In Gibbs's official statement he said, the walleye was "fighting normal the entire time...had no doubt." Did Game and Fish prove the walleye didn't get wrapped up in the string and spit the hook when it was netted?  

"Knuth stated he watched them pull two fish in before that which were 2-4 pounds and both were hooked in the top fin." 

Did Knuth provide any evidence to support this claim? His statement couldn't be farther from the truth. Both walleye were hooked in the mouth as documented by the photos my wife took with the walleye hooked in the mouth with Knuth in the background. 

Knuth provided NO evidence to support any of his claims yet, the investigator believed nearly everything he stated without comparing what was stated to the evidence. Why?

If Game and Fish based any part of their conclusion on Knuth's false statements, they should reconsider their decision. And in the least, Knuth's false statements need to be removed from the investigation report and the written warning retracted. 

Knuth contradicted himself several times in his official statements to Game and Fish. 

Here is one of several statements Knuth made where he admitted he thought my walleye was hooked legally, and it wasn't until later he "put 2-and-2 together":

Knuth stated, "Everyone was like Boo. Boo. Let it go. Let it go. You know. I was like, why? I was like...he just caught this massive fish. This is just such a...such a epic moment for this guy. He's with his family and he's all happy...but everyone else and me, we didn't quite know what was going on..."  Here are the sound clips from Knuth's official statement: https://youtu.be/gUBBSQTtb7g.

Knuth admitted he didn't know why people were saying "Boo. Let it go." and admitted I "caught this massive fish" and it was such an "epic moment" and how he "didn't know what was going on." In this statement, Knuth admitted he had no concerns as to how my walleye was caught and stated it was an epic moment. Knuth admitted he believed my walleye was "caught" in his official statement to the investigator. So why was this statement by Knuth intentionally left out of the report? 

Game and Fish intentionally left out statements made by Knuth in their report about how he believed I "caught this massive fish. It was such an epic moment. I didn't know what was going on." . 

Game and Fish intentionally left out much of what Knuth stated in their investigation report specifically his statements which supported my walleye was caught legally.

Knuth's voice message 

As we learned in POST 6, the voice message made by Knuth was intentionally left out of the report. Again, you can listen to Knuth's voice message here: https://youtu.be/YDSs0F020Ww.

In summary, this is what he stated, “I’m almost like 100% positive it was snagged in the tail. I didn’t put 2-and-2 together until later that day. I’m 100…like 99.5% sure it was snagged. The North Dakota state’s record probably shouldn’t be a record…so, I don’t know...”

Knuth himself made statements which implied he couldn’t be sure the walleye was foul hooked. He stated, “like 99.5%,” "didn't put 2-and-2 together until later," “almost,” “probably” and “I don’t know.” Knuth’s statements implied reasonable doubt. Someone should not have to put "2-and-2 together later." A person should either know or not know. And, 99.5% is not sure. Maybe this is why Knuth's voice message was left out of the report.

Game and Fish intentionally left this voice message out of their report made by the only witness who officially spoke out against my walleye. Why? 

Changes

Game and Fish stated jealousy, rumors and false claims have always been an issue yet, they have done nothing to prevent them.

The Director himself stated, "anytime a big fish is caught, you hear that all the time...there is always someone who says they did it wrong, they did it illegally." If this happens all the time, why wasn't there a better process in place to verify my walleye? Why wasn't there a better process in place to provide transparency and confidence to the citizens? Game and Fish has done little to nothing to solve or prevent jealousy and false claims. 

One change Game and Fish could take would be to create and implement a robust procedure for verifying record fish.

This process could include documenting any damage to the fish. It could include images and videos released to the public. It could include a hook location and verification process. It could include witness statements and a public report. The public has very little confidence in how records are verified because of how things have been handled in the past. Anyone who catches a potential record fish will continue to go through what I went through until things changes. This is why I will NOT be submitting any more fish for a record - although a part of me would love to see how social media would light up after that!

False claims and rumors will continue to be a problem until Game and Fish starts citing individuals for providing false statements during an investigation.

It is illegal to provide false statements to law enforcement during an investigation. When I provided my evidence to the investigator proving Knuth lied, they made the statement, "I have reviewed the information you sent in your emails and did not find any direct evidence that would prove a witness knowingly lied and provided false information to law enforcement during the investigation involving the walleye in question." Take your time to digest this statement. The investigator pretty much agreed the witness lied, but threw in the word "knowingly." False claims and allegations will continue to be a problem for Game and Fish until there are consequences for those that provide false claims and allegations during an investigation. How about Knuth and I both take a lie detector test and whoever was determined to be a liar pays the others' attorney fees and damages!

There is direct evidence proving the only witness who officially spoke out against my walleye provided false and inaccurate statements to the investigator.

Game and Fish pointed out in their response how the state law provides protections for witnesses who provide false statements during an investigation by including the word "knowingly" yet, it is not included in Game and Fish's regulations to protect the angler. I asked them specifically to change the regulation on keeping a foul-hooked fish to state, "It is a noncriminal offense to knowingly keep a foul-hooked fish." When I asked for this simple change which reflects state law, they refused to make the change. Why is this so important? Because there are protections in place for witnesses who provide false statements but NO protections in place for someone who is falsely accused and can't prove their innocence. This is why it is so important to make this change. It gives the benefit of the doubt to the angler and supports the principle of "innocent until proven guilty."

The word knowingly needs to be included in the regulation to protect the angler. 

Game and Fish had a lot of evidence in their possession which could have been used to prove Knuth's statements as false. Why was this not done? Why were the false statements by Knuth not removed from the investigation report before it was published by the media? 

It is illegal for a state agency to publish inaccurate and false statements in a report to mislead. 

False statements published with blatant disregard to the truth is the definition of Criminal Defamation. These actions by Game and Fish need to stop. It is time we we demand some oversight and changes.

#northdakotaslargestwalleye #volkswalleye #justiceforthelargestwalleye