MaM a Year Later - Reconstruct the Crime

[Safeguard]

Taking the barrels and then putting them back on SA's property is indicative of planting evidence. Unless you have another reason why LE would have done that? The "question" asked of BCA was merely another thinly veiled attempt to insert the, by now patently ridiculous, mantra that MCSO is being "picked on" and falsely accused. (Pot, Meet Kettle!). I think we all get that certain people will always default to LE adulation. No real "question" was being asked.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Well, lets talk about those burn barrels...

CASO report, page 117 in fact. "It should be noted that at approximately 1138 hours while we were en route with the trailer, we did stop on the southbound "OFF" ramp of I-43 off of STH 147 to check on the trailer because it was pulling very rough. At approximately 1139 hours we were again en route to CASO."

Why were they stopping on the off ramp? They would have no reason to go north and then back south as CASO is located in Chilton.

OH, of course~~just another mistake in the report. :facepalm: How many mistakes are you willing to accept by LE TRAINED to notice little details?

Good Grief~~I hate to get robbed or something there. Can you imagine the conversation. We are in pursuit of a silver car.....the offender was apprehended in a red truck.

Other than what is stated in CASO reports, JMO of course.

 

[missy1974]

.
I'm more interested in knowing what you think that happened? Why take the barrels then return them?

I've tried following the burn barrel's in the CASO report. It's ridiculous. At least one barrel was returned to the property after being reported as having the contents being examined already, and picked up again ON NOVEMBER 8th. BUT then later, I think on the 11th, they go through it again... huh? if they already emptied it, how did it get more stuff in it? This was such a secure scene, how did that happen? How would anyone be able to dump anything in that burn barrel?

 

[proudfootz]

.
I'm more interested in knowing what you think that happened? Why take the barrels then return them?

Just MHO

 

[BigCityAccountant]

I've tried following the burn barrel's in the CASO report. It's ridiculous. At least one barrel was returned to the property after being reported as having the contents being examined already, and picked up again ON NOVEMBER 8th. BUT then later, I think on the 11th, they go through it again... huh? if they already emptied it, how did it get more stuff in it? This was such a secure scene, how did that happen? How would anyone be able to dump anything in that burn barrel?

.
I so agree on this Missy.

While we are talking about dates. How about this one...

"MICHAEL indicated the only time he had been at the AVERY property between 10/31/05 and 11/14/05 was on Thursday, 11/10/05. He stated he and BOBBY were inside the DASSEY garage when STEVEN came over."

I haven't heard that SA was out on bail? He was arrested 11/09/05 with instructions to hold til court.

Oops~~another one of those mistakes in the report????

Page 259 CASO reports.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Steven-Avery-Arrest-Report-9-Nov-2005.pdf

 

[missy1974]

.
I so agree on this Missy.

While we are talking about dates. How about this one...

"MICHAEL indicated the only time he had been at the AVERY property between 10/31/05 and 11/14/05 was on Thursday, 11/10/05. He stated he and BOBBY were inside the DASSEY garage when STEVEN came over."

I haven't heard that SA was out on bail? He was arrested 11/09/05 with instructions to hold til court.

Oops~~another one of those mistakes in the report????

Page 259 CASO reports.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Steven-Avery-Arrest-Report-9-Nov-2005.pdf

It was eventually determined that he was there on the Thursday or Friday night, November 3rd/4th. IIRC it was the night that BoD got the deer and hung it in the garage, I recall in BoD's testimony, the deer tag was brought up and I'm pretty sure it was determined it was the Friday night, but not sure. It wasn't just the Avery/Dassey clan that had trouble recalling what day things happened.

From MO's statement:
MICHAEL indicated he was aware STEVEN was one of the
last people to see the missing girl and jokingly asked STEVEN if STEVEN had her (the missing
girl) in a closet. At this point, STEVEN asked MICHAEL if MICHAEL wanted to "help bury
the body" and they laughed about this together.

Kratz and his puppets have twisted this statement into Steven bringing it up and asking MO if he would help get rid of a body, completely missing the context of the whole conversation. It was brought up in BoD's testimony, it can be found on Day 3. http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...-Trial-Transcript-Day-3-2007Feb14.pdf#page=47


ETA: here is a direct link to MO's statement too http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CASO-Investigative-Report.pdf#page=259

 

[dexter75]

It was eventually determined that he was there on the Thursday or Friday night, November 3rd/4th. IIRC it was the night that BoD got the deer and hung it in the garage, I recall in BoD's testimony, the deer tag was brought up and I'm pretty sure it was determined it was the Friday night, but not sure. It wasn't just the Avery/Dassey clan that had trouble recalling what day things happened.

From MO's statement:
MICHAEL indicated he was aware STEVEN was one of the
last people to see the missing girl and jokingly asked STEVEN if STEVEN had her (the missing
girl) in a closet. At this point, STEVEN asked MICHAEL if MICHAEL wanted to "help bury
the body" and they laughed about this together.

Kratz and his puppets have twisted this statement into Steven bringing it up and asking MO if he would help get rid of a body, completely missing the context of the whole conversation. It was brought up in BoD's testimony, it can be found on Day 3. http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...-Trial-Transcript-Day-3-2007Feb14.pdf#page=47


ETA: here is a direct link to MO's statement too http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CASO-Investigative-Report.pdf#page=259

Lol
How convenient.
Puppets, tee hee..

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[BigCityAccountant]

It was eventually determined that he was there on the Thursday or Friday night, November 3rd/4th. IIRC it was the night that BoD got the deer and hung it in the garage, I recall in BoD's testimony, the deer tag was brought up and I'm pretty sure it was determined it was the Friday night, but not sure. It wasn't just the Avery/Dassey clan that had trouble recalling what day things happened.

From MO's statement:
MICHAEL indicated he was aware STEVEN was one of the
last people to see the missing girl and jokingly asked STEVEN if STEVEN had her (the missing
girl) in a closet. At this point, STEVEN asked MICHAEL if MICHAEL wanted to "help bury
the body" and they laughed about this together.

Kratz and his puppets have twisted this statement into Steven bringing it up and asking MO if he would help get rid of a body, completely missing the context of the whole conversation. It was brought up in BoD's testimony, it can be found on Day 3. http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...-Trial-Transcript-Day-3-2007Feb14.pdf#page=47


ETA: here is a direct link to MO's statement too http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CASO-Investigative-Report.pdf#page=259

.
Well, actually...

"This conversation clearly takes place on Thursday November 10, 2005, not Thursday November 3, 2005. And Michael Osmunson says he had just learned about the missing girl on the Tuesday prior to that. Well, that has to be Tuesday November 8th, because on November 1, no one had reported Teresa Halbach missing,"

So, someone's not being totally truthful here.

Quote from: Jury Trial Transcript-Day 3, 2007, page 71

OH~~~and I agree it was taken out of context by Kratz and his puppets.

 

[missy1974]

.
Well, actually...

"This conversation clearly takes place on Thursday November 10, 2005, not Thursday November 3, 2005. And Michael Osmunson says he had just learned about the missing girl on the Tuesday prior to that. Well, that has to be Tuesday November 8th, because on November 1, no one had reported Teresa Halbach missing,"

So, someone's not being totally truthful here.

Quote from: Jury Trial Transcript-Day 3, 2007, page 71

OH~~~and I agree it was taken out of context by Kratz and his puppets.

I'm just looking at the transcript again... I had to post this ....

Q I don't know if you are able to answer this,
Bobby, but I will ask you. what was Bear's
personality, or demeanor like, if you know? Do
you know what I'm asking you?
A He was really calm.
Q The next picture is Exhibit 51. what is that
please ?


Not the answer Kratz was looking for? lol

 

[RANCH]

Taking the barrels and then putting them back on SA's property is indicative of planting evidence. Unless you have another reason why LE would have done that? The "question" asked of BCA was merely another thinly veiled attempt to insert the, by now patently ridiculous, mantra that MCSO is being "picked on" and falsely accused. (Pot, Meet Kettle!). I think we all get that certain people will always default to LE adulation. No real "question" was being asked.

Why didn't BCA just say that? LOL.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Why didn't BCA just say that? LOL.

.
Oh~~because it's been stated a thousand times before...LOL

But~~I was really interested in Limae's response as well. :gasp:

 

[RANCH]

.
Oh~~because it's been stated a thousand times before...LOL

But~~I was really interested in Limae's response as well. :gasp:

I believe you're being honest and not trying to cause undo conflicts with other members. I thank you for that. I only wish that others follow you're example.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

I believe you're being honest and not trying to cause undo conflicts with other members. I thank you for that. I only wish that others follow you're example.

.
Well I am being honest~~sincerely honest. Remember I own property not too far from there. The last thing I want is a killer running around the woods...LOL

 

[RANCH]

.
Well I am being honest~~sincerely honest. Remember I own property not too far from there. The last thing I want is a killer running around the woods...LOL

Of course you are honest.

And I always admire the way you respect other members.

 

[RANCH]

Respect is two way street. I've seen enough to know there are antagonistic poster here. I do not respect them. Even when they throw the odd useful comment into the pot. JMO... respect is earned.
bbm

The best way to deal with that situation is to alert the post and not engage antagonistic members with tit for tat type posts. JMO

 

[Coldpizza]

No More Warnings

Done with the posturing and cliques in this Forum.

Everyone is entitled to their point of view and their opinion.

Please respect that or find yourself on the outside looking in.

Thank you

 

[missy1974]

Ok~~Here you go...

Manitowoc currently owns the land, although I don't believe they did in 2005. If you look at the top right hand corner, you will see the GIS coordinates. (I couldn't get the exact spot while using the snipping tool) but if you click the link put in the parcel number, you will be able to scroll to the exact spot.

With that said...it is just south of where the green line is, just below the "Town of Gibson". The map is from 2005, not 2016.

IIRC, they used to have historical data on that site, but changed it mid-year last year. So much for transparency.

http://webmap2.manitowoc-county.com/AdvancedAccess/

I don't know why Google Earth came up with coordinates so far away~~so much for accuracy.

ok, so I went and found what I believe are the docs you found the other night.




I can't seem to find where the title actually changed to Manitowoc County, but if I have the land descriptions right (SECTION 34 TOWNSHIP 21N RANGE 23E) , Radandt owned the property when these were filed, in 2010 and 2013.

I found them by going here:

http://rod.co.manitowoc.wi.us/landweb.dll/$/

and narrowing my search. You can find the one's above by clicking the Vol/Page and putting in the numbers in the photo's.

I'm am pretty confident that Radandt's owned that property in 2005. Both the State and Defense acknowledge this in the trial. I am not sure why anyone would think that Manitowoc owned it in 2005? I am not sure why Ferak has this in his most recent article too. :thinking:

ETA: for whatever reason, it won't add the hyperlink to the website, copy and paste will work though

 

[BigCityAccountant]

ok, so I went and found what I believe are the docs you found the other night.

I can't seem to find where the title actually changed to Manitowoc County, but if I have the land descriptions right (SECTION 34 TOWNSHIP 21N RANGE 23E) , Radandt owned the property when these were filed, in 2010 and 2013.

I found them by going here:

http://rod.co.manitowoc.wi.us/landweb.dll/$/

and narrowing my search. You can find the one's above by clicking the Vol/Page and putting in the numbers in the photo's.

I'm am pretty confident that Radandt's owned that property in 2005. Both the State and Defense acknowledge this in the trial. I am not sure why anyone would think that Manitowoc owned it in 2005? I am not sure why Ferak has this in his most recent article too. :thinking:

ETA: for whatever reason, it won't add the hyperlink to the website, copy and paste will work though

Yes ma'am, that is it! Thanks for posting and sharing.

I'd also like to add, the JR being the grantor (means he gave the property) to the grantee (Bank First Na'tl). In other words, he granted the property back to the bank at that time. If the bank was giving him the property, the bank would be listed as the grantor.

 

[Limaes]

.
I'm more interested in knowing what you think that happened? Why take the barrels then return them?

The barrel you're concerned with his #4. Nothing of evidentiary value was found in it so what is it exactly they're supposed to have planted in it?

 

[wvjules]

The barrel you're concerned with his #4. Nothing of evidentiary value was found in it so what is it exactly they're supposed to have planted in it?

<modsnip> Why did they take it and then return it?