1200 users online (229 members and 971 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 47
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,071
    "by the way, we may not be including a charge against Mr. Avery for mutilation of a corpse. But mutilation of this little girl -- excuse me -- not this little girl, but this young woman, absolutely occurred. Because this is what's left, small tiny pieces of bone fragment."

    LITTLE GIRL???

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,071
    "By the way, just so there isn't any question why I'm showing you this exhibit, one of the bullets, number 9, which was found in the crack of a -- the cement, that was not cleaned up in this case. And tent number 23A, underneath what was a air compressor, the evidence is going to show, is the bullet that Teresa left her DNA for you. Underneath that air compressor is where they recovered that second bullet."

    So I am wondering if this means they will say the floor was not cleaned up, or just that this section was not??

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,071
    "You will hear from various kinds of citizens like Bobby Dassey, who is one of the sons of Barb Janda, who you will hear testimony about, that at about 2:45 on the 31st of October, Bobby saw a young girl drive up to the Avery property."

    Young girl...again

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,071
    Now into the Defense opening statement:

    "Lenk goes to Steven Avery's home and Steven cooperates with him. Tells him essentially what I have told you about Teresa Halbach coming to take the picture of Barb Janda's van. Doesn't clam up, doesn't seem nervous, isn't uncooperative; that very night, November 3, around 7:00, when Sergeant Colborn knocks on his door.
    Out of the blue, the same night, Lieutenant James Lenk, now the head of the Detective Unit in Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department, calls Calumet about this missing person report. Now, at this time, on Thursday night, November 3, this is -- let's be clear, this is just a missing person report, a young woman who hasn't been seen for three days.
    It's in another county. It's not even Manitowoc County at all. And nobody has called for Lieutenant Lenk. And nobody's called looking for him. But the chief detective of Manitowoc County takes it upon himself, that night, to call Calumet and offer to get involved in the missing person investigation where one of the appointments that was to be kept was Steven."

  5. #20
    I am just curious as to why the defense could not point the finger at anyone other than Brendan Dassey or the Manitowoc Sheriffs department, because of some third person liability that has to do with some Denny's case. But then it was ok to take Brendan Dasseys name from the opening charges the Judge read of to the jury to just ANOTHER. If the state then changed its own theory of Brendan Dassey being the party to the crime to just any other, Then how come Defense could not introduce any OTHER possible suspect?

    I find it unfair that state is not under the same standard as the defense.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    402
    Quote Originally Posted by MysticJynx View Post
    I am just curious as to why the defense could not point the finger at anyone other than Brendan Dassey or the Manitowoc Sheriffs department, because of some third person liability that has to do with some Denny's case. But then it was ok to take Brendan Dasseys name from the opening charges the Judge read of to the jury to just ANOTHER. If the state then changed its own theory of Brendan Dassey being the party to the crime to just any other, Then how come Defense could not introduce any OTHER possible suspect?

    I find it unfair that state is not under the same standard as the defense.
    It's due to the court case State v. Denny. Defense must meet 3 prong test to introduce an "alternate suspect" and they failed to do so in this case


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    7,495
    I just finished reading day 1 and thought I would just post about a few things that stuck out to me or I found interesting.

    I will start with Kratz opening
    The first thing was Kratz's claim that this was the largest investigation in the history of Wisconson. I mean this is the home state of Ed Gein and Jeffery Dalhmar. Yet this case , the case of Teresa Halbach he claims is the largest in history? If that is true (which i doubt ) That is impressive that Steven Avery warranted a larger investigation than a lot of other cases way more devastating to the state of Wisconson.

    The next thing was that the volunteer firefighter were on scene at the search from the start before any fire is mentioned anywhere (this comes from line ten page 66)

    Later in his closing he mentions the Key on the 8th , the male blood on the 9th. The swab for SA's dna is also on the 9th . This stood out to me because of the lab report evidence exhibit that was dated on the 14'th Sherry shows she has run the blood found a hit in the DNA data base and needs a sample to compare on the 10th
    A whole day behind the collection of the sample that was collected. So it seems as if at this point there is no reason the DNA would be needed because she did not write this report until the 14th and she didnt run the search of the DNA data base until the 10th.

    One other thing was the reported left side above the ear entry on the gun shot wound. It made me wonder in TH was left handed or how someone with a .22 riffle would be standing and I thought it a good topic for a thread .

    In Strang's opening he makes some valid points about the officers and the questioning if Steve Avery is arrested yet, a mere 30 minutes after the RAV4 is found.

    The officer Jacob's call 35 after the RAV4 was found is interesting as well . His tells us how this is before any blood was found ,before the car is even open.

    I will be watching closely for testimony of people of looking in the car and what was claimed to be seen .

    Next is Mike H.
    My impression of his replies to Strang's question was that he either didn't know TH very well or was pretending to be a not very observant brother , I believe him to have known TH very well as they even worked together as adults in a professional capacity. I also believe him to be very observant as we have all seen the media and know of his career which would take a person who was observant to be successful at ,which he is .

    Next of interesting note on his testimony was that he declares Ryan and Scott as the one who pulled to search together and who told people where to go and search. Implying that he did not direct that aspect of the search and instead searched with his brother Tim along roads they deemed important based on TH's travel that day.
    Also the way the conversation between his mother and himself is mentioned is word weird . Like maybe his mom was not worried at first and he was. Hard to tell there .

    Tom Pearce was TH bussiness partner/boss.
    He stated TH had a conversation with him in the spring about being sent to SA's for Auto trader and the she was aware of who he was. That shows that TH's felt being sent there in light of his recent release and lawsuit ,was noteworthy or something she felt interested to mention.
    Also his testimony about the voice mail being full on Tuesday morning stood out for obvious reasons. He called TH's mom on Thursday the 3rd because he was concerned. He called arround 1 , (i think he said) and then he hears nothing back from Mom ,He doesnt know TH was reported missing until he sees it on the news at 10 that night.
    I thought it was odd that he wasnt checked back with around 5 before she was reported missing because if she was off somewhere it would be very likely she would have called TP , but it seemed not to be considered or maybe just overlooked in the busy first hours of phone calls.

    The last thing that was stand out to me is- there seems to be a sound quality issue in the court .

    ETA , Strang also pointed out how interesting it was already known which crime lab would get the evidence in this case . It might be nothing but defense talk ,but it was worth noting.
    Last edited by Soulmagent; 01-20-2016 at 12:06 PM.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    402
    Some quick impressions and thoughts I had on State's opening (I'll have a summary up sometime this afternoon when i finish it and read Strang's):

    Kratz is remarkably more confident and prepared than with Dassey's. I was frustrated reading his openings for Dassey as they were cluttered, he was correcting himself, and constantly pausing and saying um, uh, making it difficult to read. Not so with Avery's opening. Overall what I've read so far is pretty good, all things considered.

    He puts the restraint, murder and mutilation of Teresa beginning after 245. He says the State will not be giving a motive (which was his weakest point IMO)

    Cadaver dog hit on her vehicle is going to be shown

    He mentions a "pool" and "significant" amount of blood in rear of car, and spatter. Also mentions the 6 places where Avery's blood was found.

    Introduces the funnel approach to investigation and rough handling of bookcase, which is clearly how he plans to explain key. This was smart IMO, the key is probably the most suspicious piece of evidence, best to explain it before defense can give their side.

    I also thought his continual mention of proximity of locations to Avery's trailer, and his assertion this was going to be important during the trial, was very good, so long as he can back it up w. Evidence and tie up loose ends during closings.

    In summary, he seems like a completely different person than during the Dassey trial. Can't waist to see if he can deliver what he has promised so far


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    SK, Canada
    Posts
    3,943
    Quote Originally Posted by stephsb View Post
    It's due to the court case State v. Denny. Defense must meet 3 prong test to introduce an "alternate suspect" and they failed to do so in this case


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    One of requirements is that they have to show motive, which they really couldn't do. IIRC The defense argued that it was unfair because the prosecution didn't really have a motive for why SA killed TH, so they should have been able to show other "suspects" that had equal motive (which would have been a low threshold, right?) So his brothers... the Dassey kids.... ST.... they couldn't show "motive", the ex.... couldn't show motive, however, if LE had investigated properly.... they may have found motive.

    IMO if it was SA, it wasn't anything he planned, it was a crime of opportunity.... the same could be said to anyone on that property that day.... the ex, we really don't know if there were issues there, the room mate, who knows..... I find the fact that there are things that point to others and the Defense not being able to bring it up is totally unfair to me as well MysticJynx.

  10. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by stephsb View Post
    It's due to the court case State v. Denny. Defense must meet 3 prong test to introduce an "alternate suspect" and they failed to do so in this case


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Then should they have the state also have to meet a three prong test to list the Party of the crime as just ANOTHER! Once he did that the Denny's thing should have been null and void. State was pointing the finger at just about anybody, and from what I understand the three prong test is to prevent the defense from just pointing their finger at any OTHER.

    It is a double standard in my opinion. Once the state changed those words from BD to ANOTHER then defense should have been able to point the finger also at any other.


  11. #26
    I would like to know if they had volunteer fire fighters searching the property, did they have any Manitowoc Sheriff Departments volunteers also on that property?

    Is there a list of all the names that were on that property. Supposedly there was about 200 people walking all over the lot.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    SK, Canada
    Posts
    3,943
    Quote Originally Posted by MysticJynx View Post
    I would like to know if they had volunteer fire fighters searching the property, did they have any Manitowoc Sheriff Departments volunteers also on that property?

    Is there a list of all the names that were on that property. Supposedly there was about 200 people walking all over the lot.
    That would be interesting, wouldn't it? Since we know one of the jurors was a volunteer.....

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    402
    Quote Originally Posted by MysticJynx View Post
    Then should they have the state also have to meet a three prong test to list the Party of the crime as just ANOTHER! Once he did that the Denny's thing should have been null and void. State was pointing the finger at just about anybody, and from what I understand the three prong test is to prevent the defense from just pointing their finger at any OTHER.

    It is a double standard in my opinion. Once the state changed those words from BD to ANOTHER then defense should have been able to point the finger also at any other.
    It's not about pointing the finger somewhere else, it's about preventing the defense from pointing the finger at a specific alternate suspect, by name. The defense can state that another person clearly could have committed this crime, but they can't name names or point the finger at a specific person w.o. meeting the three criteria in Denny. The court's reasoning behind this was to protect innocent people who are not on trial from being treated as a suspect in open court.

    As for the party to a crime charge, my guess on why they changed Brendan's name to "another" is because they were being tried separately and Brendan wouldn't testify. The State isn't required to prove who the other parties are if only one defendant is on trial. That is my best understanding of the concept, although I could be wrong.

    Personally, I think Denny has good intentions but goes to far, the bar is too high, especially if no other suspects were ever properly investigated


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    402

    Opening- kratz

    Here is the summary of the important points:
    • Six spots of Steven's blood found in RAV4
    • Significant blood from Teresa in RAV4- "great pools"
    • Nov 5th torrential downpour occured (while cadaver dog search w. Brutus and friends was occuring)
    • all four residences were searched, including business and Avery garage
    • Cadaver dog Brutus hit on Teresa's vehicle
    • Her vehicle was located furthest point from Steven's trailer, State argues this is not accidental
    • Mentions how easily her car could have been crushed
    • Battery disconnected
    • Will only "argue" that the battery was disconnected, can't give evidence why
    • Steven lured her to property, and was last person to see her alive
    • State will not provide motive
    • Sometime after 2:45, Steven restrained, murdered, and mutilated Teresa
    • State will prove what happened, who committed it, how/when it happened
    • Emphasizes Steven's burn barrel
    • The hostile german shepard was Bear, owned by Steven
    • Proximity is key to their case: Roadway, burn barrel, burn area, van, trailer, garage
    • Funnel approach will be used to explain key, as well as finding evidence months later
    • The bookcase was jostled/handled roughly
    • There was a detailed garage search on March 1-2
    • During this search, they find 2 bullets, one including Teresa's DNA, this is because they finally knew what they were looking for
    • Bullets found in crack in cement and under air compressor (latter was the one w. Teresa's DNA)
    • Blames clutter for not finding the bullets the first time, since they didn't know a shooting occured there and therefore didn't know to search for bullets
    • Avery property was absolutely the last property Teresa was on
    • Steven was actively bleeding on Oct 31
    • Says that Steven's bleeding/wound is something the defense understands, isn't a "secret"
    • Mentions skin cell DNA says it can come from perspiration, saliva, bodily fluids
    • Tells jury he was scared by the word "forensic odontologist" the first time he heard it
    • Mentions that full skeleton was not found in burn pit, says if it had been, they may not have charged him w. mutilation of a corpse, but because they couldn't, mutilation of "little girl" absolutely occured
    • Two important pieces of bone found, both from cranium w. a defect that can only be caused by high velocity projectile
    • also finds lead spray on cranium, which can only come from bullets
    • Entrance wound above left ear, second entrance wound in occipital region, these were the cause of death
    • Evidence will show Steven attempted to burn evidence in burn barrel: cell phone, camera, PDA
    • Camera includes imprint/signature, recovered 6 pictures taken on Avery property
    • Refers to last phone call made by Steven (after she was on property) as an alibi call
    • Says they will show evidence that shows the path Teresa took after taking pictures/walking to Steven's trailer
    • Bobby Dassey sees a young girl driving to Avery property @ 2:45, also sees her taking pictures, walking towards Steven's trailer
    • STATES THAT BOBBY DASSEY IS LAST PERSON TO SEE TERESA ALIVE
    • Says this case is not a "whodunit" but a what/where/when it happened case
    • Will show exclusionary evidence (evidence used to exclude other suspects)


    Here are some further thoughts I had on it:
    While the State overall appeared much stronger than in Dassey's trial, they did have some weak points. One of these was when Kratz reminds the jury how easily her car could have been crushed. My immediate question was, well then why wasn't it?

    I also thought the part where Kratz tells the jury the evidence will show why the battery was disconnected, and stops and corrects himself, saying instead "they will argue that the battery was disconnected" also appears weak. To me, it means they have no evidence, as argument (only used in closing) cannot be considered as evidence. It is clearly apparent why they were trying to hard to get Brendan to confess to seeing Steven doing things under the hood of the car- they were trying to get "evidence" that Steven was disconnecting the battery. Shows what their initial plan w. Brendan was- to testify against Steven for the purpose of presenting his "confession" as evidence against Steven.

    Kratz places a lot of emphasis on the burn barrel being Steven's. This could be in potential conflict w. Blaine's initial police statement, where he insists he'd know if Steven used a burn barrel, but he didn't. Everyone on the property used burn barrels, except Steven, Allen, and Dolores.

    Regarding his assertion that Steven was actively bleeding on Oct 31, and that this was something the defense understood, I am interested in how they will show this beyond a reasonable doubt, and what, if any evidence, they have to back up this assertion

    Worth noting that Kratz has gotten a ton of criticism over using the term "sweat DNA" recently, but in the trial, he refers to the DNA found under the hood correctly as skin cell DNA. Clearly shows he is going to argue that it is sweat DNA, but does not it could be from sweat, saliva, or bodily fluids.

    I didn't appreciate the comment that Kratz makes to the jury about being afraid the first time he heard the word 'forensic odontologist'. Somewhat condescending/demeaning to assume the jury would be afraid of the big word 'odontologist'. Not a great way to get the jury to your side, IMO. They should always be treated w. respect, you can explain technical terms w.o insinuating they won't know what it means

    During the time when he refers to Teresa as a "little girl" who was absolutely mutilated because her full skeleton was not found, he begins having to correct himself (Teresa isn't a little girl) and starts stumbling over the things he is saying. He is no longer showing confidence at this point, and this continues to a lesser extent through the discussion of DNA. Perhaps it is because he isn't comfortable discussing forensic evidence (he is, after all, afraid of the word odontologist) or it could be that he is not as confident/comfortable discussing this evidence. Either way, not great in front of the jury- the most important thing for the Attorney to do in front of the jury is project confidence and belief in their case

    Kratz claims they will show evidence that Steven attempted to burn evidence in the burn barrel- the cell phone, camera, and PDA. I remember hearing about these items being in the barrel, but I don't remember hearing that he attempted to burn them (possible I missed something). He never clarifies what the evidence is, so we will have to wait and see if he presents it. As a juror, I would be taking notes on all the promises each side makes during the opening, so I can go back and see if they delivered what they promised. Will be interesting to see how much he can backup w. evidence. Regarding the camera specifically, he mentions 6 photos found that were taken on the Avery property, are their time stamps on them? I am curious if evidence will show this, hopefully they will, as it will help determine a timeline of sorts.

    Can't figure out why the decided to mention Bobby Dassey last. In both my Civil Litigation and Criminal Practice classes, we were instructed to start strong and finish strong- bury evidence that isn't particularly good for your case somewhere in the middle, unless there is evidence that is extremely damaging to your case, in which case the best strategy is to address it right off the bat, as it gives the jury the impression you are being honest and not hiding something, and also allows you to "tell your story". Perhaps Kratz feels Dassey's testimony is the best he has (which wouldn't be great for his case, IMO). Regardless of his strategy, Dassey is brought up last, as I had immediate questions about his assertion that he saw a young girl driving to the Avery property @ 2:45PM, who got out of her car, took pictures, and then walked to Steven's trailer, which is all witnessed by Bobby. How exactly is Bobby witnessing all of this? Did he decide to wake up, stare out his window at this woman he doesn't know for a good 15 minutes minimum, and then go take a shower when he notices her car is still there, but she's nowhere to be found? Why in the world is he watching her so closely- this isn't someone that he'd have any particular interest in watching at this point- he didn't know she'd go missing and end up burned on his property, so its interesting he saw her do all these things out his window. Quite a coincidence. Even better is when he states that the last person, the last "citizen" to see Teresa Halbach alive is Bobby Dassey. If Steven is the murderer, it should have been Steven, as Kratz asserted it was earlier. Perhaps this was just a harmless mistake, and didn't come out the way he wanted (I'm assuming he intended to say, or should have said, something along the lines of: Other than the defendant, Steven Avery, Bobby Dassey is the last person to see Teresa Halbach alive, and what does he see her doing? He sees her heading to Steven Avery's trailer.) This would have been strong in front of the jury, so long as they view Bobby as credible. For the sake of his case, he better hope that "the last person to see Teresa alive" can give a believable, consistent story. Regardless, I feel his testimony is going to be very important.

    I am almost finished w. Strang's opening, and will post my summaries shortly

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    402

    Opening- strang

    Important points made by the Defense:
    1. Starts by mentioning it has been 22 years since Manitowoc wrongfully convicted SA
    2. Blood vial is central- sealed in 1996 in Manitowoc County Clerk of Court, while Teresa was learning to drive
    3. Irony of this that the blood sealed while she learns to drive will end up in her car
    4. Don't just get hands dirty while working at Salvage Yard, get them "bloody" from working w. jagged metal
    5. Chuck's trailer in back was on the path to the crusher
    6. Championing Salvage Yard as noble business
    7. Lawsuit does matter- cops worst nightmare, especially since Allen went on to rape another woman
    8. Van was Barb's- calls were hers, price was hers to negotiate, offers were hers to consider
    9. SA left B. Janda as name because she was the seller
    10. Leaving this name was not unusual, not sinister, and not luring
    11. Barb couldn't make the request herself since during the day she's at her factory job, not salvage yard
    12. All phone calls would go to Barb from sale
    13. THIS WAS NOT TERESA'S ONLY APPT THAT DAY WHERE THE SELLER'S NAME DID NOT MATCH THE NAME GIVEN TO AUTO TRADER
    14. Schmitz car was called in/listed as appt for Craig Sippel. Teresa thought she'd see Craig Sippel, not Schmitz
    15. Teresa knew address, which SA gave, and she had been to it at least 6 times
    16. Teresa knew where she was going
    17. SA used *67so as not to give out his number
    18. Disputes timeline given by Bobby, says Teresa probably pulled up at 3:30, per school bus driver
    19. Buchner (bus driver) has no relation to Avery's or Halbach's
    20. Buchner was not sure if she saw woman taking photos on M/T/W, but Mon is the day there would have been a woman out taking photos
    21. Seller gives photographer $40, they make out a receipt for transaction, and usually give a current copy of Auto Trader mag
    22. SA states he sees Teresa for the last time going back down Avery Road, about to take a left toward Highway 147
    23. SOMEONE, sees her later, but we don't know who, where, when. We also don't know why, just like Kratz
    24. Hustle shots- did she have any that day? Could she have had some after Avery shots? Defense doesn't know
    25. In the gap of time, which is rather large, between Zipperer/Avery shots, did she do hustle shots, or just get lunch?
    26. Defense states they do know someone saw her later
    27. SA called Teresa @ 4:35PM because he wanted to sell another car, figured she may as well come back
    28. Jodi phone calls- SA TELLS JODI HE'S CLEANING, Brendan is over
    29. Doesn't hide that Brendan was there, which he would if they were up to no good
    30. Describes Jodi/Steven on phone as "squabbling"
    31. These were inane phone conversations, she doesn't hear screaming, SA is not acting like he just committed a murder
    32. Calumet immediately calls Manitowoc, Colborn shows up. They want him to check out Zipperer/Avery residences. Avery name rings a bell w. him
    33. COLBORN ONLY GOES TO AVERY RESIDENCE
    34. Lenk calls Calumet, offers to get involved in Missing persons case
    35. Nov 4: Lenk goes to SA's trailer w. another officer, SA is cooperative
    36. SA allows Lenk to walk through his trailer
    37. "Not funnel approach, but tunnel- as in tunnel vision approach"
    38. Focus was on SA before car opened, blood was found, or they even knew if Teresa was hurt/killed
    39. Male roommate, former BF Ryan Hillegas, and others are asked if they know anything about Teresa's disappearance. All say no and they are believed
    40. SA is not believed, but questioned again and again
    41. Will hear evidence that Lenk altered his sworn statement on when he arrived at the property Nov 5, because he signed out of crime scene log book, but never signed in
    42. Wrong to think that Manitowoc bowed out after Calumet took over
    43. Lenk/Colborn (L/C) search SA's bedroom
    44. L/C find nothing of interest, don't take guns until the next day, Nov 6, when they search the trailer AGAIN
    45. Avery family, Dassey boys, and Barb have access to garage
    46. Bullet in cement crack was in middle of garage near door. This was not seen until March
    47. NO CLUTTER UNDER AIR COMPRESSOR
    48. LENK ONLY ONE IN ROOM WHEN KEY FOUND IN PLAIN VIEW NEXT TO NIGHTSTAND
    49. SA bled all over Teresa's car, but not key. DNA found, but no fingerprints. No DNA on key from Teresa, or fingerprints
    50. L/C CRUCIAL TO CASE
    51. L/C NEVER TOLD PAGEL, OR CALUMET CO. THEY HAD BEEN DEPOSED 3 WKS EARLIER FOR SA'S CIVIL CASE
    52. HUMAN BONE FRAGMENTS FOUND IN BURN BARREL BEHIND BARB'S HOUSE. Tells jury they will be shown this
    53. 4 burn barrels behind Janda's for Barb/boys
    54. Bone fragments apparently human
    55. Probable human bone fragments in Radant Gravel Quarry 1/4 mile away
    56. These bone fragments not linked positively to Teresa
    57. "How many burnt human bone fragments are there supposed to be w. only one missing person"
    58. Mix of bone fragments in Janda barrel, as well as Quarry
    59. Continual reminder by Defense that State hid Janda burn barrel from jury
    60. Must accept that bone fragments were moved
    61. After it is accepted bone fragments were moved, the question then becomes- Were they burned @ SA's and moved elsewhere, or were they burned elsewhere and moved to SA's?
    62. Defense admits that thermal injury experts won't answer whether bone fragments were moved conclusively
    63. Defense believes that jury, after doing hard work, will find bones were moved to SA's burn area
    64. Better places on property for burning a body: aluminum smelter, wood furnaces used to heat the outbuildings, Chuck's house, and Allen/Dolores house
    65. Cannot rule out burn sites off property
    66. If you accept there is another burn site that is more likely than SA's, then he's not guilty
    67. If Steven burned bones elsewhere and moved them, he won't bring them back just to put them 20 yds from his bedroom window
    68. Same concept w. dumping her property in his own burn barrel, instead of pond, quarry, or other burn barrels.
    69. Focus of investigation is clear
    70. Obiviously LE did not kill Teresa, they share that w. SA. They wanted to believe he did it, and the real killer exploited that tunnel vision
    71. Plays tape between investigators Remiker/Jacobs at 11:35 AM (35 min after finding vehicle)- "Is he in custody?"
    72. The above conversation happened prior to the hit by Brutus, the car being opened, and any blood evidence being found
    73. Play Jacobs call to dispatch @ 11:30AMAAsA
    74. 30 min after car located, Jacobs is asking dispatch- "Do we have a body? Is Steven Avery in custody?"
    75. No blood from Teresa in SA's trailer, no hair, nothing that suggests she's ever been in trailer
    76. Blood from vial examined by Lenk in 2002 ends up in Toyota because that is where it belongs
    77. Give SA the full/fair consideration Manitowoc didn't give him in 2005



    Will add in my thoughts on the Defense's opening tomorrow morning/afternoon, I am also working on a timeline based off of testimony during trial. Also will type up the rest of the witness testimony from Day 1 and hopefully get started on Day 2.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Steven Avery Jury Trial Day 19 - 03.08.2007
    By bessie in forum Steven Avery Jury Trial Transcripts
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-13-2016, 10:29 AM
  2. Steven Avery Jury Trial Day 6 - 02.19.2007
    By bessie in forum Steven Avery Jury Trial Transcripts
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-19-2016, 11:45 PM
  3. Steven Avery Jury Trial Day 7 - 02.20.2007
    By bessie in forum Steven Avery Jury Trial Transcripts
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-19-2016, 11:40 PM
  4. Steven Avery Jury Trial Day 8 - 02.21.2007
    By bessie in forum Steven Avery Jury Trial Transcripts
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-19-2016, 11:37 PM
  5. Steven Avery Jury Trial Day 21 - 03.12.2007
    By bessie in forum Steven Avery Jury Trial Transcripts
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-19-2016, 10:40 PM

Tags for this Thread