1184 users online (189 members and 995 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 47
  1. #31
    I have never posted before, but I wanted to thank you for your synopsis of the trial transcripts as well as your analysis. This is much easier for me to get through!

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    402
    From here on out, will try to do date/time related events separate from observations (I'll post it at the end of each post) so it'll be easier to see and use if anyone plans on working on a timeline. I am working on a master timeline to help see discrepancies, but don't plan on posting it until after I've read the whole trial, and I'll do it in a separate thread.

    Here is the DEFENSE OPENING TIMELINE (I'm sure I missed a few things, but this was the big stuff)

    2002: BLOOD VIAL EXAMINED BY LENK
    OCT 2005: COLBORN/LENK DEPOSED

    OCT 31
    8:12A: SA CALLS AUTO TRADER
    11:45A: TH CALLS BJ, SAYS SHE'LL BE THERE SOMETIME AFTER 2PM
    2:15P: TH ON ZIPPERER PROPERTY TAKING PHOTOS
    2:30P: TWO CALLS MADE BY SA, USING *67
    3:30P: TH ON AVERY PROPERTY TAKING PHOTOS
    4:35P: SA CALLS TH TO HAVE HER TRY AND SELL ANOTHER CAR
    4:35P-5:30P: SA ON PROPERTY UNACCOUNTED FOR
    5:30P: JS CALLS SA ON LANDLINE
    5:45P: JS/SA END PHONE CONVERSATION
    9:00P: JS CALLS FOR SECOND TIME
    9:15P: JS/SA END PHONE COVERSATION

    NOV 2005: GARAGE PICS SHOW THERE IS NO CLUTTER UNDER AIR COMPRESSOR

    NOV 3
    5:00P: TH REPORTED MISSING
    7:00P: COLBORN QUESTIONS A CALM SA

    NOV 4: LENK ALLOWED TO SEARCH SA'S TRAILER W. HIS CONSENT

    NOV 5
    AM: SA LEAVES FOR CABIN IN CRIVITZ
    10:30A: STURM'S FIND VEHICLE
    11:00A: MANITOWOC SHERIFF'S ON SITE
    11:30A: JACOBS CALL TO DISPATCH- "DO WE HAVE A BODY? IS STEVEN AVERY IN CUSTODY?"
    11:35A: TAPE RECORDING ASKING "IS HE IN CUSTODY?"
    SA QUESTIONED BY OFFICERS IN CRIVITZ
    LENK/COLBORN SEARCH SA'S TRAILER

    NOV 6: GARAGE SEARCH BY L/C, THEY FIND 10-11 SHELL CASINGS
    NOV 7: L/C AGAIN SEARCH TRAILER, NOTHING FOUND

    NOV 8
    L/C BACK IN BEDROOM FOR 7TH SEARCH
    L/C SECOND GARAGE SEARCH
    BONE FRAGMENTS FOUND IN SA BURN AREA

    And finally, here are some thoughts I had on the Defense Opening:
    Overall, I thought the Defense's opening STATEMENT was very good, but I was not a fan of their opening lines. I did not like the "Irony of Teresa learning how to drive in 1996 is the blood just drawn by Steven will end up in her car" I think their opening should have focused on something they could definitively prove, and this wasn't in. Feels to conspiracy-ish, IMO. I also didn't like the time he spent championing the salvage yard as some noble business- tbh I just didn't see a purpose to it at all.

    The mention of getting your hands "bloody" in the Salvage Yard during work is probably foreshadowing the defense they'll have for why Steven was bleeding on Oct 31. Not a bad one

    They did have A LOT of really strong points, however. One of them was stating that SA left the name B. Janda because she was the seller. This is especially powerful because the prosecution is going to argue this shows he lured her there under false pretenses, when in reality, there were other appointments Teresa had THAT DAY, where she thought she was seeing one person, but was seeing another. Also, emphasizing she knew the address, as she had been there half a dozen times prior, discredits their luring claim.

    They had a lot of great points on the bad investigation, this was, IMO, their best points. They start off strong by pointing out Colborn is right off the bat asked to investigate BOTH the Zipperer/Avery properties, but Colborn only checks out one.

    To follow w. that, they do a great job of painting the dynamic duo Lenk/Colborn in a very poor light. The biggest question I had at the end of openings was why in the world were L/C on that crime scene, not once, not twice, but at least 7 times, some of which were unsupervised. This was bad information for the State. They hammer at L/C pretty hard, and their points are very valid: The Defense states that Lenk was the only one in the room when the key was found in plain view next to the nightstand, this is very concerning (Again, WTF is he doing their unsupervised in the first place?) In addition to them looking like bad investigators, the Defense makes them look potentially deceptive. They bring up that L/C never mention to Pagel, or anyone in Calumet Co., that they had been deposed in Calumet Co 3 weeks earlier for Avery's civil case, which they should absolutely have mentioned. Another damaging point that hits at deception is when they say Lenk altered his own sworn statement when he signed out of the crime scene log book, but never signed in (why would he not sign in??). After all the information given about Lenk/Colborn, I feel firmly that if Avery gets a new trial, they have no one to blame but themselves. There is one reason this case has so much doubt, and that is because two investigators who were told and should have known they couldn't be on that crime scene, were wandering around finding evidence, unattended, not checking in, not once, not twice, but at least seven times. The defense makes the great assertion, which is very strong IMO: L/C are CRUCIAL to this case. They found and are connected to most of the damning evidence. That is very bad for the State.

    Specifically addressing the key, they bring up another great point- Steven was bleeding everywhere, according to Kratz. He bled on the ignition, but didn't bleed on the key. Just like he left no fingerprints on the key. Very interesting, although I suppose the State can counter w. he cleaned it.

    The best line they made was: "Not funnel approach, but tunnel- as in tunnel vision approach". This was brilliant. The funnel approach was, IMO, a decent explanation for the State's pathetic examination of the crime scene. It wasn't great, but it was the best they had. I'm certain the jury saw it as somewhat legit. This is taking the State's own words to use them against themselves, and this is a great strategy for the defense. The clever wordplay is going to make it easy for the jury to remember, and have it stick in their minds. So now, the jury has to options: Did they do a pathetic job because of the funnel approach, or tunnel vision approach? This was a win for the Defense, hands down. I think they have more than enough evidence to show tunnel vision. They give an example of the tunnel vision approach immediately following, and it sticks w. their theme this investigation was bad from the very start- They mention the male roommate, Ryan Hillegas, and others are asked if they have any info about Teresa's disappearance. They all say no, and all are believed. Not so w. Steven.

    They end very strong by asserting to the jury that LE had nothing to do w. the death of Teresa Halbach, and this is wise. They instead blame their bad investigation and tunnel vision- "They desperately wanted him to be guilty, and the real killer exploited that tunnel vision" This is a strong point, and very tragic if true. Puts the thought in the mind of the jurors that the real killer is still out there.

    Another good mention was to take aim at Kratz's "clutter" defense as to why the State didn't find the two bullets until MARCH- pictures showing the air compressor had no clutter under it, just that magic bullet in plain view.

    Another strong point was the human bone fragments being found in Barb Janda's burn barrel. This CERTAINLY should have at least had some of her boys and probably her boyfriend questioned w. suspicion. Of course, maybe Steven moved them...but it's also possible someone else moved them to Steven's after the fire. I do question why they say they were apparently tested- were they so destroyed they couldn't determine conclusively, or did the State even test them? Hopefully they give us some answers on this. Also good is that they continually mention that the State never mentioned Barb's burn barrels, only cared about Steven's- goes w. their tunnel vision argument, makes Kratz look deceptive.

    Their argument that Steven wouldn't dump her property/bone fragments in his own burn barrel/burn area, 20 yds from his bedroom window, is also a great argument. Why take the bones off site just to bring them back? Even if he didn't burn them completely, so what? Certainly they are better there than on his own property lol.

    They had some weaker points too, although overall I think the strong far outweighed the bad. One of the points I didn't particularly like was when they assert that they "know" SOMEONE saw her later- but they can't tell you who, where, when, or why. They do get a jab at Kratz's lack of motive (just like Kratz, we don't know why) which was good, but they still show how little they know as well. I know this is not the defense's job to prove anything, but giving something helps, especially when you assert that you KNOW someone saw Teresa later- How do you know that? is my question. Hopefully they will present some evidence answering that question, if they do, this weak point will be eliminated IMO.

    I thought they put a little too much emphasis on that the bones in the Quarry HAD to be Teresa's, because how many other missing people were there? The bones were not positively identified as human, and I thought this was an unconvincing argument and huge assumption to jump to the thought that they were Teresa's.

    Worth noting that they and the prosecution are at odds on the 4:35P phone call from SA to TH. Prosecution claims it was an alibi call, Defense claims he decided he wanted to sell another car, figured she may as well call back. This isn't a bad argument, but personally, I think the State's is stronger on this point.

    Worth noting from the Jodi phone calls- SA tells Jodi he is cleaning. Wonder if he goes and elaborates on this at all. This is a possible defense for Brendan's stained jeans, but the State can also argue they were cleaning up a crime scene. They don't specify what phone call this is stated in, but I'm assuming the 9:00P one, as Brendan was not there at 5:30P. I didn't think their assertion that Steven would have mentioned Brendan if they were up to no good there, perhaps he thought at that point he'd look better if he ever got caught because Brendan would back him up (just speculation, obviously things didnt go down that way). Strang also describes them as "squabbling"- what was that about, and that is the first I remember hearing about that.

    Something worth noting as well is Strang's treatment of the jury, which is in sharp contrast to Kratz's. Kratz appears at times to be talking down to them, while Strang regards them w. respect- he makes numerous statements about how he knows they will do the hard work, take the time to consider the evidence, and think rationally about it all. He's building them up, and this is good.

    Lastly, they had a great ending- asking simply for the jury to give SA the full and fair consideration that Manitowoc didnt give him in 2005. This was simple, strong, and empowering for the jury.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1
    So, I just made an account on this because I wanted to post at some point because I thought these Websleuth threads had the most interesting comments from users of any web thread by far. It was also amazing that I was able to go back to the ORIGINAL thread of November 2005 and see how different everybody's opinion of Steven Avery has for the most part taken a 180 shift. It's just crazy how much the media involved sways a person's opinion of somebody... That being said, I am currently on DAY 4 of the transcripts and I think that Kratz is LUCKY that not only the few things he was so Adamant about the documentary leaving out and how 1-sided it was, but he was LUCKY that nobody other than the folks in the courtroom were able to see what actually went down. DAY 4, and you can ALREADY tell how much of a set-up this whole thing was. Buting and Strang did an amazing job for the time they were given to work on this case.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    SK, Canada
    Posts
    3,943
    Quote Originally Posted by ConwayTwitty View Post
    So, I just made an account on this because I wanted to post at some point because I thought these Websleuth threads had the most interesting comments from users of any web thread by far. It was also amazing that I was able to go back to the ORIGINAL thread of November 2005 and see how different everybody's opinion of Steven Avery has for the most part taken a 180 shift. It's just crazy how much the media involved sways a person's opinion of somebody... That being said, I am currently on DAY 4 of the transcripts and I think that Kratz is LUCKY that not only the few things he was so Adamant about the documentary leaving out and how 1-sided it was, but he was LUCKY that nobody other than the folks in the courtroom were able to see what actually went down. DAY 4, and you can ALREADY tell how much of a set-up this whole thing was. Buting and Strang did an amazing job for the time they were given to work on this case.

    Welcome to Websleuths!
    I agree about the media swaying opinions, it's kinda crazy, isn't it?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nestled Deep in Southern Hospitality
    Posts
    21,895
    Quote Originally Posted by stephsb View Post
    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
    I actually wish more states would enact this type of law. I have seen so many cases where the defense tried to blame someone else for the murder based on no factual evidence at all to back any of it up. It does seem very unfair to put someone else on trial who isn't even on trial nor been charged with anything. I remember in the David Westerfield case where he raped and murdered little Daniele Van Dam.... Steve Feldman put her parents on trial and was allowed to accuse them falsely during cross examination. What made this doubly hard to take is all along Feldman knew beyond any doubt Westerfield was guilty. He and Westerfield had been in the middle of brokering a deal with the DA where they were going to take the death penalty off the table if DW would tell them where he put her little body. Thank goodness it never materialized and her body was found just hours before the deal was to be finalized and he wound up getting death. Yet that didn't stop Feldman from trying to convince the jury that her parents were really the ones responsible for her murder.

    Remember when Garegos told the jury that a band of homeless cult members really murdered Laci Peterson? He knew that was a bald face lie yet he was allowed to state it and never backed it up with any supporting truth or facts entered into evidence that linked them to Laci.

    I don't think any defense team should be allowed to just throw someone's name out there as a suspect if they don't have any factual evidence to support any of those claims. The DA has to put forth evidence linking the defendant to the crime and the defense team should have the same burden if they are going to specifically name someone else as the suspect rather than their client.

    I do agree with the court. It does put innocent people on trial who aren't even on trial.

    Its bad enough when the DTs all too often puts the victim/s on trial trying to divert attention away from their client.

    imo
    "Pardon Our Noise, It's the Sound of Freedom" USMC New River Air Station, Jacksonville, North Carolina

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nestled Deep in Southern Hospitality
    Posts
    21,895
    Why would SA want to hide that he was the one calling her?

    2:30P: TWO CALLS MADE BY SA, USING *67


    Why wouldn't he tell her when she was just there he wanted to sell another car? What other car was he going to sell?

    4:35P: SA CALLS TH TO HAVE HER TRY AND SELL ANOTHER CAR

    Was this entered in through the phone records at trial? Its been so long I cant remember all the details. Were they actual voicemail recordings or is that what SA said was the reason for calling her not long after she had been seen there? Did he block his number in that message? If not, why not since he had earlier? Or did he want it recorded that he was the one that called her at 4:35 but didn't think the blocked calls would be able to tie him to those calls?

    What businessman/woman blocks his/her number when calling anyone they are doing business with? I was in business for 35 years and not once did I ever hide my identity from those I did business with. Wouldn't he want her to know it was him calling her if it was on the up and up?
    "Pardon Our Noise, It's the Sound of Freedom" USMC New River Air Station, Jacksonville, North Carolina

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    402
    Quote Originally Posted by oceanblueeyes View Post
    Why would SA want to hide that he was the one calling her?

    2:30P: TWO CALLS MADE BY SA, USING *67


    Why wouldn't he tell her when she was just there he wanted to sell another car? What other car was he going to sell?

    4:35P: SA CALLS TH TO HAVE HER TRY AND SELL ANOTHER CAR

    Was this entered in through the phone records at trial? Its been so long I cant remember all the details. Were they actual voicemail recordings or is that what SA said was the reason for calling her not long after she had been seen there? Did he block his number in that message? If not, why not since he had earlier? Or did he want it recorded that he was the one that called her at 4:35 but didn't think the blocked calls would be able to tie him to those calls?

    What businessman/woman blocks his/her number when calling anyone they are doing business with? I was in business for 35 years and not once did I ever hide my identity from those I did business with. Wouldn't he want her to know it was him calling her if it was on the up and up?
    The 4:35P call was from the phone records, but the reasoning behind it is disputed. I posted it as part of the Defense Timeline. Defense claimed he was calling to have her come back and do a second shot of another car (a hustle shot, which she had done for Steven before) while the State claims it was an alibi call (he's calling her because she never showed up on his property) Personally, I don't think either of these is a satisfying explanation, JMO.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    402
    Quote Originally Posted by oceanblueeyes View Post
    I actually wish more states would enact this type of law. I have seen so many cases where the defense tried to blame someone else for the murder based on no factual evidence at all to back any of it up. It does seem very unfair to put someone else on trial who isn't even on trial nor been charged with anything. I remember in the David Westerfield case where he raped and murdered little Daniele Van Dam.... Steve Feldman put her parents on trial and was allowed to accuse them falsely during cross examination. What made this doubly hard to take is all along Feldman knew beyond any doubt Westerfield was guilty. He and Westerfield had been in the middle of brokering a deal with the DA where they were going to take the death penalty off the table if DW would tell them where he put her little body. Thank goodness it never materialized and her body was found just hours before the deal was to be finalized and he wound up getting death. Yet that didn't stop Feldman from trying to convince the jury that her parents were really the ones responsible for her murder.

    Remember when Garegos told the jury that a band of homeless cult members really murdered Laci Peterson? He knew that was a bald face lie yet he was allowed to state it and never backed it up with any supporting truth or facts entered into evidence that linked them to Laci.

    I don't think any defense team should be allowed to just throw someone's name out there as a suspect if they don't have any factual evidence to support any of those claims. The DA has to put forth evidence linking the defendant to the crime and the defense team should have the same burden if they are going to specifically name someone else as the suspect rather than their client.

    I do agree with the court. It does put innocent people on trial who aren't even on trial.

    Its bad enough when the DTs all too often puts the victim/s on trial trying to divert attention away from their client.

    imo
    I respectfully disagree w. Your interpretation of how Denny should be used. I agree w. Denny to a point- the defense should not be able to name someone w.o meeting some kind of test. However, the alternate suspect in Denny is not on trial, they can accuse all the want, even if the jury believes their theory, he won't be charged/convicted on the defenses closing arguments.

    Because the alternate suspect is not on trial, and because the defense does not have the burden of proof, the bar to mention another person by name should not be as high as the States. Denny, is in fact, in some regards, a higher burden than the State has, as Denny requires the Defense show motive, something the State doesn't even need to show, as we saw from Kratz' opening.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    402

    Steven Avery Jury Trial Day 1 - 02.12.2007

    Just wanted to quickly sum up my thoughts after day 1 (I'll posts summaries of the testimony of each witness later today)

    I think the first day was a clear win for the Defense. The State's first three witnesses all gave more to the Defense than the State, IMO

    Halbach: Under cross, said he had Teresa's voicemail and computer passwords. Admits to checking her voicemail on Nov 3

    Pearce: Mentions the full voicemail in Direct, but during Cross states that her voicemail box was already full by the afternoon of Nov 1- when no one knew she was missing. It remained full from the 1-3rd. He also gives the bombshell that three wks prior to the murder (three wks would be approx Oct 10) Teresa had been receiving "nuisance calls" at all hours of the day, and said something like "Oh no, not him/them again". Says she recognized number but wouldn't let him see it. Also describes seeing her key ring out on the counter w. at least 3-4 keys on it. Kratz attempts to give the most ridiculous redirect ever, and shows he has no idea what "scope of redirect" means

    Beach: This looks like a win for Kratz when DB says he talked to SA on Nov 4th and he admits to Teresa being at his property at 2pm on Oct 31, strengthening his timeline. Unfortunately for him, on Cross, we find out that isn't want SA actually said, but in reality, used the qualifier "mid-afternoon" We also find out that DB claims he just "incidentally" stumbles upon the Salvage Yard, no one directed him there, and he didn't know Teresa had an appt there, even though he talked to the Halbach's and MH said they knew by the night of the 3rd-morning of 4th where he appointments had been. Oh, and he testifies to SA's demeanor- "calm, concerned, and forthright"- also says he did not appear to be hiding anything, and DB accepted all his answers and left.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    402
    MICHAEL HALBACH DIRECT
    • TH's brother
    • TH ran her own business, Photography by Teresa
    • Last place he saw TH was at their grandparent's house
    • MH would see/talk to TH every three days or so
    • TH owned a cell phone (Motorola RAZR), palm pilot, and various cameras (Hasselblad, Canon, little snapshot camera for Auto Trader job)
    • TH drove a Toyota RAV4, bluish-green in color
    • License plate number was SWH-582, which he remembered because TH would joke it stood for "Single White Halbach"
    • One of Teresa's clients was Auto Trader magazine
    • TH used a Canon Powershot A310 camera for the Auto Trader job
    • TH lived w. a friend from HS, Scott Bloedorn
    • SB lived in the upstairs apartment of the farmhouse TH was renting from her parent's, just down the road from her parent's house
    • Pam Sturm is MH's first cousin once removed
    • MH remembers crying at his parent's house when he found out PS and her daughter Nikole found TH's vehicle
    • TH would not go somewhere w.o telling anyone, especially a family member, good friend, roommate, or boss
    • After they made calls to TH's friends, MH expresed to his mother, KH, that something was seriously wrong. She agreed
    • The Halbach's had help when they needed it from family, Teresa's friends, and the community
    • Ryan Hillegas, TH's ex-boyfriend, and SB organized most of the search efforts
    • TH had a membership to a gym and was physically fit
    • TH was 5'6 and 135 lbs.
    • Posters were distributed over a very large area of northeast WI including Appleton, GB, Manitowoc, Chilton, south to Milwaukee, and east to the lake
    • Semi-drivers going to Madison and Milwaukee would stop at their house and pick up fliers to put up on their route
    • Attempted to re-create route that TH may have taken on Oct 31st
    • The main area they wanted to focus posters, and do foot searches to, was a location they could trace TH to
    • Tim/Michael Halbach went to routes they thought for sure she could have taken, but other people were searching as far as Milwaukee, and up to Door County, because they didn't know where she had gone
    • MH recalls driving down Highway 147, getting out, and looking down embankments, in case she had got in an accident and was trapped
    • They drove down as many roads as possible, including back and side roads
    • Estimates they distributed a couple thousand posters
    • Family is strong and optimistic, but also realistic. Hoped they would find TH alive, but were happy when they found her car, as it might help them find her
    • MH was always informed in advance of anything, whether physical evidence, information, news conference, or info from court hearings


    KEY POINTS

    Emphasized TH would not disappear w.o telling anyone where she was going


  11. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    402
    MICHAEL HALBACH CROSS
    • TH was an athlete in high school, played vollyeball until her sophomore year
    • Reasonably athletic and fit
    • TH grew up working on a dairy farm, all the kids helped w. chores, but TH mostly helped inside the house, and baby-sitting her sisters
    • TH could stand up for herself/was independent
    • Halbach's were tight-knit immediate family, close extended family as well
    • After reporting TH missing, her family started discussing where they knew she was on Oct 31, what appointments she had, where she was supposed to be before and after that date
    • They were able to nail down all her appointments on Oct 31
    • Heavy media coverage of the case
    • HAD PASSWORDS FOR CELL PHONE AND COMPUTER
    • MH had the passwords because he did website graphics for her business
    • MH never checked the cell phone bill, so wasn't certain the password was correct
    • KNEW PASSWORD TO HER VOICEMAIL
    • CHECKED TH'S VOICEMAIL AFTER KH FILED MISSING PERSONS REPORT
    • MH thinks he would know what keys she was carrying
    • Does not believe she had keys to her parents house, or any other cars, or "fancy things" on keychain
    • Can't recall if TH had swipe card for gym
    • TH had separate garage/house key for the farmhouse she was sharing w. SB
    • TH was essentially next door neighbors w. her parents (although rural) you could see their house through evergreens
    • MH was a videographer, and had helped TH out w. a wedding before she disappeared, he was doing videography, she did photography
    • Can't recall for sure if TH carried a purse
    • TH did not wear a lot of jewelry- maybe a few rings, but not bracelets, necklaces, or earrings often


    KEY POINTS

    MH CHECKED TH'S VOICEMAIL ON NOV 3

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    402
    MICHAEL HALBACH TIMELINE

    3/22/1980: TH BORN

    2002
    TH graduates UWGB w. photography major
    Starts her own business, Photography by Teresa

    AUGUST 2004
    TH starts working for Auto Trader magazine to supplement her income

    AUGUST 2005
    TH coaches her sister's 7th grade volleyball team

    OCTOBER 2005
    TH owns/drives a Toyota RAV4
    TH is approx 5'6, 135 lbs

    SAT 10/29/2005
    PM: TH helps MH shoot a wedding video
    Late PM: TH going to Halloween party

    SUN 10/30/2005
    Last day MH sees TH
    Halbach family gathering at Grandpa's

    THURS 11/3/2005
    MH working
    Call from Jay Breyer, runs Youth Educated in Safety, a missing persons organization
    2-2:30P: Call from KH asking if MH had seen/talked to TH since Sunday, Oct 30
    5:00P: KH files missing persons report
    Early PM: MH checks TH's voicemail
    PM
    Earliest possible time MH found out TH had appointments at Avery Salvage Yard
    News mentions TH case
    Someone able to access TH cell records online (per Strang)

    FRI 11/4/2005
    Halbach's ask for help handing out posters
    Media coverage begins of TH
    AM: MH knew about Avery Salvage Yard appt for sure
    2-2:30P: Met w. anyone who had time to do vehicle searches across WI

    SAT 11/5/2005
    Halbach's do searches by car
    RAV4 found
    Heavy media coverage of TH case
    7:00A: Group of volunteers meet at TH's house to retrace the route she took Oct 31

    NOTES ON HALBACH TESTIMONY

    Not impressed w. Kratz's Direct. He has to ask the witness if he's asked him a question already, which Michael remembers wasn't asked, but Kratz doesn't. Just looks disorganized and unprofessional, IMO.

    Defense did a great job with Cross. Was able to get from MH that he knew Teresa's voicemail password and computer passwords, AND that he checked her voicemail. The exchange between Strang/Halbach over checking TH's cell phone records on the computer is interesting and a bit confusing- Strang says "he thinks someone accessed her cell records on the computer, and Halbach replies w. "I don't think on her computer" Were the cell phone records accessed on a computer, will there be proof of this? If there is, MH's answer becomes much more interesting

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    402
    THOMAS PEARCE DIRECT
    • Professional photographer, 38 years experience
    • Asked TH to work through his studio doing weddings and portraits
    • Started her own business, not to be in competition, but compliment eachother
    • Worked out of his studio, but started her own business
    • They cooperated in doing advertising, promotions, learning, and helping eachother
    • TP would book weddings for her, TH would book for him
    • Never any competition between them
    • TH would call upon TP for advice on how to run a business
    • Told him that she picked up Auto Trader as a client, and was running around doing business
    • When TH first started w. Auto Trader, she was doing Mondays, which are days they are typicall closed in the industry, because they work a lot of Saturdays
    • Then it was Mondays, Wednesdays, and some Saturdays. TH was constantly telling him she was running around doing Auto Trader
    • TP sat TH down and told her he didn't want to see her get burnt out from "running here, running there". That was what she enjoyed, "constantly running" but TP worried about her well-being
    • TH told TP she was taking photos for SA, who she had to remind him was "the guy who was wrongfully convicted" which led to a discussion that helped him remember the case
    • TP discussed TH running around the county all by herself, and whether she was safe
    • She was working for TP when she purchased the RAV4, he took theh picture where she is standing in front of it
    • TH was extremely reponsible, always kept TP informed of if she was going to be gone for the day, if she had appointments, was she taking off for the weekend, etc.
    • TH was one of the founders of the BMG Marketing Group, and was very active in it
    • When TP still had not seen TH after her weekly Weds meeting w. the BMG group. He thought this was a little strange, and tried to call her, but her voicemail box was full and he couldn't leave a msg
    • Very strange that TH's voicemail was full, as he always got right through to her, and she was very good at returning calls/msgs
    • TP calls TH again on Thursday, when some of her work starts being shipped in to be processed
    • Believes if TH was out of town or sick, she would have called by now, TP is now "really, really worried"
    • TP called KH, who said she was going to call some of TH's friends


    BEST POINT
    TP never saw TH past October 29, and it was not normal for her to not show up for work w.o a call, or neglect her work. She was responsible.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    491
    First post, just want to say thank you for the transcripts. Going to get stuck into them now.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    4
    Hi all, just dropping in to say hello and thanks for the helpful summaries. There's so much material here (5,508 pages worth of transcripts alone), it's tough for people to digest it all without a "reader's digest" version.

Page 3 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