Steven Avery Jury Trial Day 1 - 02.12.2007

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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.....
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
184
Guests online
2,215
Total visitors
2,399

Forum statistics

Threads
589,970
Messages
17,928,534
Members
228,026
Latest member
CSIFLGIRL46
Back
Top