Can someone link me to where it states for a fact that a VOICEMAIL was left by SA at 4:35 asking Teresa where she is? As far as I know, that was a tale made up by Kratz to say it was SA's way of trying to create an alibi.
Can someone link me to where it states for a fact that a VOICEMAIL was left by SA at 4:35 asking Teresa where she is? As far as I know, that was a tale made up by Kratz to say it was SA's way of trying to create an alibi.
So you are saying there is documentation showing there was really no voicemail ever left by him at that time? Did the defense attorneys in his trial prove that to be false? Who testified that he never made the voicemail at 4.35? It has been 10+ years so I have a difficult time remembering particular testimony by some who testified.
TIA
IMO
So you are saying there is documentation showing there was really no voicemail ever left by him at that time? Did the defense attorneys in his trial prove that to be false? Who testified that he never made the voicemail at 4.35? It has been 10+ years so I have a difficult time remembering particular testimony by some who testified.
TIA
IMO
It was reported all over the news right after she went missing. If you look at the old thread here from 2005, it is mentioned several times. Not sure if had been proven in court or not.
This is from a 2007 news report of the trial proceedings.So you are saying there is documentation showing there was really no voicemail ever left by him at that time? Did the defense attorneys in his trial prove that to be false? Who testified that he never made the voicemail at 4.35? It has been 10+ years so I have a difficult time remembering particular testimony by some who testified.
TIA
IMO
1. To what extent are the 3 phone calls important in ascertaining Steven Avery's guilt?
2. What are the implications of using *67?
3. What are your thoughts/theories on the last 13 sec, non *67 call?
It was reported all over the news right after she went missing. If you look at the old thread here from 2005, it is mentioned several times. Not sure if had been proven in court or not.
I find it weird that on SA's bill it says that call at 4:35 the call lasted 00 seconds. However on TH's bill it states that call was 13 seconds long. Is this odd? How do you think this happens?
I think it was on reddit where I read a theory that .... he called ,it went right to voicemail so he hung up, (0 seconds on his end?), on her end because it connected to the VM, it took 13 seconds to disconnect? I can't think of any reason it would record differently like that... then again.... we don't have the actual records, we have a word document to look at LOL
If Avery wants to continue to charge law enforcement with malfeasance, provide concrete proof of that claim. If Avery wants to claim that his two brothers were the "real" murderers, provide tangible evidence of their involvement. Avery's task becomes even more daunting when you include logic into the legal equation. Who requested that Halbach photograph a vehicle on the Avery compound? Who called Halbach's place of business not once, but twice using Star 67? Who called Halbach's place of business a third time AFTER Halbach was murdered and asked why she didn't show up for the photography session? Wasn't that caller the SAME person who admitted to local reporters AND Nancy Grace that Halbach DID show up for the photography session?
SUSTAINED: The Star 67 ruse was presented in detail during closing arguments and, if memory serves, testimony about those three calls (e.g., two Star 67 calls and singular call at 4:35 PM) was provided by the receptionist who worked for Halbach's employer. Avery used his sister's name as the contact person during those two Star 67 calls, and the ruse was corroborated by Halbach's call to her employer stating that she didn't know the exact location of the Avery photo shoot. Halbach had been out to the Avery residence 5 times in the past, so why did she state that she had no idea where the photo shoot was located? Logic dictates that Halbach had no idea where Avery's sister lived on the Avery compound.
In regards to Avery's prior calls to Halbach's employer, he never used Star 67 when requesting Halbach to photograph a vehicle on his property. It's important to note that from 10/31/05 to 11/5/05, the vehicle Halbach photographed remained in the SAME LOCATION on Avery's property. Avery never moved that vehicle to the section of the compound where other cars were for sale. The whole purpose of that photo session was to sell that vehicle at the Avery compound, yet Avery decided to keep it apart from where other vehicles had been photographed for Auto Trader magazine.
SUSTAINED: Thanks for clarifying the context of the 4:35 call. Speaking of context, the FACT that the vehicle that Avery wanted to sell remained in the SAME location for 5 days, is just a small piece of a much larger puzzle. Again, Avery is attempting to use a photograph placed in Auto Trader magazine as a way to sell that vehicle, yet he doesn't move that vehicle to the appropriate location? It is similar to his moving Halbach's vehicle a stone's throw away from the crusher, yet he ultimately decides to take the plates off the car, lock the vehicle, and cover it up with yard debris.
The Netflix documentary makes a concerted effort to "prove" that Avery's blood was planted in 6 locations inside Halbach's vehicle. They give a half-hearted effort in playing fair by including the testimony of Deputy O'Conner and Detective Remiker in regards to protecting the scene where Halbach's vehicle was found. What the audience is unaware of is that prior to the forensic team arriving at the Avery compound, FOUR officers were in charge of protecting that particular crime scene.
In addition to O'Conner and Remiker, Sergeant Orth and Lieutenant Hermann guarded Halbach's vehicle. To a man, they testified that NO person entered Halbach's vehicle prior to the Calumet County forensic team arriving at the scene. The vehicle was locked when Pam Sturm and her daughter Nikole first discovered the vehicle and Halbach's key had not yet been discovered.
The LOCKED vehicle is then transported to a garage in Madison, photographs are taken of the outside of the vehicle on the 6th, and then the forensic team has to open the vehicle without the use of a key in order to photograph the inside of the car on the 7th. Logic and chain of custody proves that no rogue officer or officers had access to the inside of that LOCKED vehicle PRIOR to the discovery of Avery's blood inside that vehicle.
If you're going to keep stating that he called her and left a message asking where she was after she left as fact, then we have nothing more to discuss. That is a myth, there is no verification, it was something Kratz threw out there as a theory to explain that call which, for all we know, was him calling to ask her to come back another time to take photos of another vehicle. We don't know why that call was made.
Do you believe Schmitz was attempting to "disguise" who he was by giving another name when he made the appointment?
Agreed. That has never really been explained. I thought of that a while back....just going off of what was either reported or in the 2005 thread. me=:lamb:
From Strang's opening statements from the trial transcripts:
Steven Avery calls her later, as a
7 matter of fact, from his cell phone. Again, he
8 calls her cell phone at about 4:35 that
9 afternoon. Why, because he thought, I have got
10 another car I would like to sell. I might as
11 well, if she's still around, or if she can swing
12 back, I might as well have her shoot that one
13 too.
14 But he doesn't get an answer from her,
15 doesn't answer the phone, when he calls at 4:35.
Page 128
I was just reading this testimony and commenting on the testimony thread of day 2. The Account number that was on that slip was just made, because the receptionist DP didn't bother to look into the name address and number as she clearly knew he was a reoccurring customer since she testified that he wanted the same photographer as BEFORE, she decided to just appoint it another account number a new one. And on that note she knew as maybe her reoccurring customers did that she was the ONLY photographer for that area. Only making appointments on Mondays. He also did not ask for TH by name. So really how did she know, other than the area code of the number he gave that he was even talking about TH? DP claims she did not know this customer.