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