1192 users online (257 members and 935 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 59
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    SK, Canada
    Posts
    3,946

    MTSO Reports

    http://www.stevenaverycase.org/miscellaneous-records/

    NEW:

    MTSO Report on Avery's Pointing a Gun at Sandra Morris (1985): http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...s-Incident.pdf

    MTSO Report on Avery's Threatening Letters (1988): http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...reats-1988.pdf

    MTSO Report on Possible Harassment (1990): http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...ent-Report.pdf

    MTSO Report on Nov 4 Interview with Avery and Initial Search (2005): http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...-to-Search.pdf

    MTSO Report on Halbach Investigation (2005): http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...estigation.pdf


    Again, courtesy of SkippTopp, we have some new records. They did not come without some drama though. When he received the records, they were stamped with:

    This document is the property of Manitowoc CO Sheriff's Office
    Its contents are confidential and are not to be disseminated
    Sheriff Robert C. Hermann


    After some phone calls and basically finding out that it's BS and they can't restrict a "public" document, he posted them

    Report on Avery indecent exposure 1985: http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...osure-1984.pdf

    MTSO incident report 1985 PB Incident report: http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...eport-1985.pdf

    Assault incident report: http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...ction-1985.pdf
    Last edited by shadowraiths; 03-25-2016 at 10:21 PM. Reason: additional document links

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    SK, Canada
    Posts
    3,946
    someone else made a request for the 1985 reports, Case #S85-04815. The file hasn't been uploaded yet, but they did post a snip from it:
    Kocourek 1985 report.jpg

    As you can see by the red stamp up in the top right hand corner.... there was some question about whether it could be shared or not. The rest of the report is supposed to be available tomorrow, I will keep my eye out.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    514
    http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...estigation.pdf

    Okay. already see something strange here on page 3. It has the date they seized the RAV4 as 11/3, yet the car was not "discovered" until 11/5 by Pam, right?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    SK, Canada
    Posts
    3,946
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaiddie View Post
    http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...estigation.pdf

    Okay. already see something strange here on page 3. It has the date they seized the RAV4 as 11/3, yet the car was not "discovered" until 11/5 by Pam, right?
    This is just my opinion.... and I'm pretty sure you know how I feel about this case for the most part, I think it was poorly investigated, I don't think they proved beyond a doubt that SA is guilty, and pretty much nothing would surprise me at this point! LOL

    Calumet County contacted Manitowoc on November 3rd at 18:34 and asked for their assistance. At that time, they opened a case #, Colborn went to see SA, Remiker/Colborn/Lenk went to see Zipperer, and then back to SA's the next day. The file was closed, and in the dispatch calls on the 5th, the dispatch woman tells one of the officers that it was closed and they reopened it when the RAV4 was found that morning.

    What I think happened was.... on November 3rd, they had TH listed as "missing", and also had a description of her vehicle (we know this from Colborn's mysterious call, right?). As time went on though, the "description" with that case number got updated.... SA probably went from a Witness to a Suspect to Charged with murder/sexual assault/mutilation of a corpse, etc. The vehicle went from missing to seized. It says November 3rd because that is when the case number was originally opened.

    All JMO and I wouldn't read too much into their dates and descriptions. It would be way too easy if on November 3rd they started the process of framing him and "documented" it in their computer system LOL

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    SK, Canada
    Posts
    3,946
    I read these last night, and they are a bit hard on the eyes. There are a few things that stuck out to me but I want to go back and look again later after work. One thing I wanted to comment on is..... they did feed the dog, Bear!!!!! I know some of us were concerned about that.... so wanted to share that before I forgot ;-)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by missy1974 View Post
    This is just my opinion.... and I'm pretty sure you know how I feel about this case for the most part, I think it was poorly investigated, I don't think they proved beyond a doubt that SA is guilty, and pretty much nothing would surprise me at this point! LOL

    Calumet County contacted Manitowoc on November 3rd at 18:34 and asked for their assistance. At that time, they opened a case #, Colborn went to see SA, Remiker/Colborn/Lenk went to see Zipperer, and then back to SA's the next day. The file was closed, and in the dispatch calls on the 5th, the dispatch woman tells one of the officers that it was closed and they reopened it when the RAV4 was found that morning.

    What I think happened was.... on November 3rd, they had TH listed as "missing", and also had a description of her vehicle (we know this from Colborn's mysterious call, right?). As time went on though, the "description" with that case number got updated.... SA probably went from a Witness to a Suspect to Charged with murder/sexual assault/mutilation of a corpse, etc. The vehicle went from missing to seized. It says November 3rd because that is when the case number was originally opened.

    All JMO and I wouldn't read too much into their dates and descriptions. It would be way too easy if on November 3rd they started the process of framing him and "documented" it in their computer system LOL
    I agree with you up to a point, but I also cannot ignore the issues of Colborn's (now can we also say astronomically coincidental as it is on that very date ) Nov 3 call to dispatch with the license plate numbers and the super speedy (and fishy) discovery of the RAV4 on the 5th by Pam Sturm and company.

    Poorly investigated doesn't even BEGIN to describe that investigation. I am starting to feel like they didn't care to even ATTEMPT to show any professionalism or integrity in any of their actions during that investigation from start to finish. From the very beginning, an hour and a half after TH was reported missing (and their own paperwork backs it up) they have her as kidnapped, SA as a suspect in her homicide.

    They go on national television and LIE to the public that they are handing the case over to Calamet County. Steven is arrested and those 2 very important depositions are canceled just in the nick of time.

    I am now at the point that I believe that, in local LE's complete arrogance, they thought that they could just make this all go down the way they wanted it to and no one would really question things, so why worry about paperwork (which they CLEARLY didn't worry about).

    I mean, they had just gotten the decision from the DOJ that there was nothing done wrong in the 1985 conviction, so why WOULDN'T they think that way? Not to mention, it can be seen even today, that local mind-set that their LEO could do no wrong.

    Almost all of the local media is STILL spewing out the Kratz party-line and most locals wont even watch the documentary. I don't think they cared about documenting their framing, because who was going to hold them accountable if found out. The DOJ??

    They had already passed that hurdle once with flying colors, so why not this time too, as they had so much at stake if the civil case went through. Kourceck (sp?) certainly was not wanting to answer those questions that a Judge had ruled he was going to have to answer. This is all JMHO, of course.
    Last edited by shadowraiths; 03-24-2016 at 11:01 PM. Reason: added line spacing to help readability

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    112
    I don't think anyone comes out looking good in those reports. Not Steven Avery, not MTSO, not nobody, not nohow. Sigh.

  8. #8
    shadowraiths's Avatar
    shadowraiths is offline LISK Liaison, Verified Forensic Psychology Specialist, infoSec Architect
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,867
    Quote Originally Posted by missy1974 View Post
    This is just my opinion.... and I'm pretty sure you know how I feel about this case for the most part, I think it was poorly investigated, I don't think they proved beyond a doubt that SA is guilty, and pretty much nothing would surprise me at this point! LOL

    Calumet County contacted Manitowoc on November 3rd at 18:34 and asked for their assistance. At that time, they opened a case #, Colborn went to see SA, Remiker/Colborn/Lenk went to see Zipperer, and then back to SA's the next day. The file was closed, and in the dispatch calls on the 5th, the dispatch woman tells one of the officers that it was closed and they reopened it when the RAV4 was found that morning.

    What I think happened was.... on November 3rd, they had TH listed as "missing", and also had a description of her vehicle (we know this from Colborn's mysterious call, right?). As time went on though, the "description" with that case number got updated.... SA probably went from a Witness to a Suspect to Charged with murder/sexual assault/mutilation of a corpse, etc. The vehicle went from missing to seized. It says November 3rd because that is when the case number was originally opened.

    All JMO and I wouldn't read too much into their dates and descriptions. It would be way too easy if on November 3rd they started the process of framing him and "documented" it in their computer system LOL
    As some here are aware, I have long stated that I feel SA is guilty.

    The "big" BUT...

    While I get what you're saying, imho, dates are incredibly important when it comes to the legal process. Just as chain of custody is crucial. And yet, they appear to have ignored both in spades.

    In the end, and imho, the whole thing is one big mess.



    Forensic Psychology Portal

    I tend to disappear from Websleuths from time to time.
    If I do, you can usually find me on
    Twitter.


  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by shadowraiths View Post
    As some here are aware, I have long stated that I feel SA is guilty.

    The "big" BUT...

    While I get what you're saying, imho, dates are incredibly important when it comes to the legal process. Just as chain of custody is crucial. And yet, they appear to have ignored both in spades.

    In the end, and imho, the whole thing is one big mess.
    The MTSO reports changes things for me a little bit. I was under the impression that the MTSO had free unreported reign on the investigation on the 3rd and the 4th with no documentation of their actions. So far the report does show some account of what went on within the departments. Having said that no one comes out looking good. If anything both parties SA and MTSO look bad.
    The items that look the worst for SA:
    the discrepancies about having a bon fire.
    the investigator who claimed that bear was a problem and fed the dog. Yet the closer he got to the burn pit the more he started noticing vertebral and skull fragments. That looks very bad for SA
    the discrepancies about whether she was in his trailer at all
    the fact that they seemed to have actually secured the rav 4 pretty quickly
    KK seemed so sure they wouldn't find any edta in the blood in the rav 4

    The items that look the worst for LE
    The fact that Lenk was on the premises during or shortly before all major evidence discovery
    The fact that MTSO was party to finding the bullet fragment months after the initial searches when calumet had long since taken over.
    The fact that they could not remove a dog for days who was impeding the investigation of the burn pit. And it took days to discover the bones, giving time to plant bones
    The fact that they fudged the dna match to the bones to TH.
    No blood in the garage where she was supposed to have been shot
    The way the car was found leads me to believe it was discovered before the 5th and placed on the lot. The whole thing stinks of prior knowledge.

    Also, what's the significance of the Zander road address on the for sale sign in SA's bedroom? I'm trying to decide if that's the ad you hid reference..

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    SK, Canada
    Posts
    3,946
    I am just starting to read the MTSO report again.... let's start with the Zipperer's....

    First off..... they knocked on the front/back door for 15-20 minutes before anyone came out??? wth? GZ and his grandson JZ came out and made contact finally. (should be noted that it has been mentioned that JZ was in jail at this time... apparently he was not). GZ and JZ both say they received a call from a female about the ad for the vehicle. They tell the officers that JoEllen might have more info but might not speak with them.... why not? (weird)

    JoEllen speaks to them through a window.... not only does she have troubles remembering the date and time when TH was there.... she didn't even know what day of the week it was currently! (This is who they called to the stand to corroborate the 31st timeline)

    Dedering listens to the voicemail of TH...... is this recorded???? and in Remiker's report, it says Dedering was able to determine the approx time that TH went to the Zipperers .... but doesn't state what time that was. (We do know that Remiker on the morning of the 5th is still unsure of her last stop, so this "time" didn't help them determine anything, right?)

    After a lengthy conversation..... it was determined TH was there between noon and 3pm.


    **** I wonder if at any time during these conversations the officers mentioned the Avery lot.... SA.... that they were trying to determine her timeline, her stops, etc. ****


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    596
    Quote Originally Posted by Justiceseeker35 View Post
    <sbm>...Also, what's the significance of the Zander road address on the for sale sign in SA's bedroom? I'm trying to decide if that's the ad you hid reference..
    This is what I have managed to find:

    3302 Zander Road refers to several different locales in Wisconsin
    • Two Rivers
    • Maribel
    • Prairie du Sac
    • Sun Prairie
    • Denmark
    • Stangelville


    the (920) 737-4731 telephone number brings up Photograph By Teresa in Green Bay, WI at ibegin.com, and the address she lists is the address for Thomas Pearce Photography in Green Bay.

    The Strangelville 3302 Zander is approximately 35-40 minutes away from the 1599 Western Ave. address for the photograph business of both Teresa and Thomas

    There is also something called Angels Of Mercy Sealed Library which appears to have a similar query as yours, but no information is readily available at that web address.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    SK, Canada
    Posts
    3,946
    So, I have read the report again ....

    I would really like to know when these reports were typed up and put together.

    There is so much detail about some events, and little about others. Stressing how they stayed away from the vehicle, pointing out that certain officers were standing 30' behind or whatever. The story about the "key", ya know the one that they stopped everything and took a picture, and Kucharski ever so carefully picked it up and put it in an evidence bag. I see other keys being mentioned that they picked up too, but none were treated with that much importance.

    Another thing I made a note of as I was reading... on page 12, the best I can gather is.... they didn't go into Charles' residence until the 6th. Are you kidding me? What if TH was in his house???? It's like they weren't even looking for her! They use a credit card to enter his house so not to use force.... a complete search of the interior of the residence did not locate any items of evidence.... how do they know what is evidence at this point? Did Charles have guns? that would be evidence, wouldn't it? did he have pornographic material? because according to the investigation, that must be evidence.

    for the bone conspirators..... Page 11, Deputy Tackes reports that he assisted Remiker and CASO and loaded the 4 burn barrels on to a trailer and towed it with Squad 70. Page 15.... Jost (who finds the first bone), mentions he drove Unit 70 down to the property. (squad 70/unit 70 I'm guessing is a CASO vehicle?)

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    SK, Canada
    Posts
    3,946
    Oh and another thing I would like to mention.... the list of the people that were stopped on their way out of the property by O'Connor.....

    Earl has stated in a news article that Andres Martinez was there the morning the RAV4 was found, but I do not see him on the list of people stopped. I thought it was suspicious at first, but after looking for more information, I'm not sure if he was still there when the police arrived and he got out of there quick (remember a few vehicles got past O'Connor, it was in testimony and I think calls, but I don't see it in this report). I know EA testified in a pretrial motion, but I don't remember if anything about Martinez was brought up, will have to look at some point.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    596
    Quote Originally Posted by missy1974 View Post
    Oh and another thing I would like to mention.... the list of the people that were stopped on their way out of the property by O'Connor.....

    Earl has stated in a news article that Andres Martinez was there the morning the RAV4 was found, but I do not see him on the list of people stopped. I thought it was suspicious at first, but after looking for more information, I'm not sure if he was still there when the police arrived and he got out of there quick (remember a few vehicles got past O'Connor, it was in testimony and I think calls, but I don't see it in this report). I know EA testified in a pretrial motion, but I don't remember if anything about Martinez was brought up, will have to look at some point.
    The only reference to Martinez that I have seen so far is in the State v Avery (Appeal, Part I) as a possible third-part suspect but little information is provided. Further revelation us made available in the January 2010 Opinion, referencing that Martinez "attacked his girlfriend with a hatchet", but there is very little further information that I have seen anywhere else.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    596
    Quote Originally Posted by missy1974 View Post
    Oh and another thing I would like to mention.... the list of the people that were stopped on their way out of the property by O'Connor.....

    Earl has stated in a news article that Andres Martinez was there the morning the RAV4 was found, but I do not see him on the list of people stopped. I thought it was suspicious at first, but after looking for more information, I'm not sure if he was still there when the police arrived and he got out of there quick (remember a few vehicles got past O'Connor, it was in testimony and I think calls, but I don't see it in this report). I know EA testified in a pretrial motion, but I don't remember if anything about Martinez was brought up, will have to look at some point.
    Remiker also mentions that he finds a broken pair of eyeglasses and an ear piece in the afternoon of Nov 5, 25' from the maroon van. But I see no further mention of that detail anywhere else so far. It also is interesting to note that from this point on the investigation acquires a search warrant, Avery has vacated the salvage yard, and the investigators are in complete control of the property with no one objectively observing what they are doing -- for example, their forced entries, their deep investigations, and etcetera. Or in other words they have complete carte blanche to run rampant over Avery Salvage Yard, and to do what they please. It was always -- and still is -- my understanding that a search warrant needs to be served upon the owner of the property. That would have been Dolores Avery, right? Earl Kevin Avery was simply a partner in the business. Did that entitle him to be Power Of Attorney over Dolores' property?

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. K. Gilboy (sp) just said reports are thAT
    By costalpilot in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-15-2008, 03:47 PM

Tags for this Thread