Steven Avery: Making of a Murderer

[Chris_Halkides]

marplots,

When I said that a "selective cleanup was not possible," that's exactly what I meant and nothing more. I specifically tried to avoid saying that the lack of DNA from Halbach allowed only a single explanation. I agree in principle with the notion that the DNA found does not equal the DNA deposited (I made that point many times with respect to a different case). However, Mr. Buting noted on p. 214 that a total of 345 items were taken from Mr. Avery's trailer and garage, and he goes on to say that 180 items were identified as being suitable for DNA testing (both were records for the state of Wisconsin). That's a large number, but of course it is not an infinite number.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides

marplots,

When I said that a "selective cleanup was not possible," that's exactly what I meant and nothing more. I specifically tried to avoid saying that the lack of DNA from Halbach allowed only a single explanation. I agree in principle with the notion that the DNA found does not equal the DNA deposited (I made that point many times with respect to a different case). However, Mr. Buting noted on p. 214 that a total of 345 items were taken from Mr. Avery's trailer and garage, and he goes on to say that 180 items were identified as being suitable for DNA testing (both were records for the state of Wisconsin). That's a large number, but of course it is not an infinite number.

Assuming TH went to the junkyard (is that in dispute?), then her DNA ought to be there somewhere, whether or not Avery did it.

With Dassey's yarn thrown out, there's no particular reason to think whatever happened happened in the trailer, is there?

Just curious - was TH's DNA found on the extra key from the trailer?

[Samson]

Originally Posted by marplots

Assuming TH went to the junkyard (is that in dispute?), then her DNA ought to be there somewhere, whether or not Avery did it.

With Dassey's yarn thrown out, there's no particular reason to think whatever happened happened in the trailer, is there?

Just curious - was TH's DNA found on the extra key from the trailer?

No.
It was not, without wishing to suggest you must read all the material, this is a singularity in the case.
The anomaly is described by

No Halbach dna

Only Steve dna.

Any crime theory should include this and workings must be shown.

[marplots]

No Halback DNA found.
That's a distinctly different statement than "No Halback DNA."

[Ampulla of Vater]

Originally Posted by marplots

Assuming TH went to the junkyard (is that in dispute?), then her DNA ought to be there somewhere, whether or not Avery did it.
<snip>

This is not really true. If she got out of her car, took pictures of a vehicle, walked up to the front porch as SA walked out to hand her money, there would really be no DNA anywhere, except on her camera and on the money. DNA is not really pouring off of you, unless you are a sweaty mess.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater

This is not really true. If she got out of her car, took pictures of a vehicle, walked up to the front porch as SA walked out to hand her money, there would really be no DNA anywhere, except on her camera and on the money. DNA is not really pouring off of you, unless you are a sweaty mess.

Or, she could have touched a bunch of stuff that wasn't tested.

The point is that the DNA found shapes the story we tell - the theory of the crime - and that's all it can ever do. DNA that isn't found, for whatever reason, gives us plenty of room to maneuver when making up the narrative.

If Avery's DNA hadn't been on the hood latch, the defense wouldn't need to explain it away. The hood latch only comes up because DNA was found. When it isn't, there isn't anything to "explain away." No DNA is like no shell casings, or no fingerprints, or no CCTV - the prosecution is limited to using the evidence they find. Having those things only helps them. Not having them doesn't cripple their case.

Was there an explanation for why Halback's DNA wasn't found on the spare key?

[Samson]

Originally Posted by marplots

Or, she could have touched a bunch of stuff that wasn't tested.

The point is that the DNA found shapes the story we tell - the theory of the crime - and that's all it can ever do. DNA that isn't found, for whatever reason, gives us plenty of room to maneuver when making up the narrative.

If Avery's DNA hadn't been on the hood latch, the defense wouldn't need to explain it away. The hood latch only comes up because DNA was found. When it isn't, there isn't anything to "explain away." No DNA is like no shell casings, or no fingerprints, or no CCTV - the prosecution is limited to using the evidence they find. Having those things only helps them. Not having them doesn't cripple their case.

Was there an explanation for why Halback's DNA wasn't found on the spare key?

It was a valet key that Mike Halbach gave the police.
Shaun Attwood furnishes this as an explanation in "unmaking a murderer".

"NOT THIS TIME" dear Mike confidently offers to the media when discussing the possibility of Steve walking.

It fits like a glove.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by Samson

It was a valet key that Mike Halbach gave the police.
Shaun Attwood furnishes this as an explanation in "unmaking a murderer".

But that doesn't explain it. Unless you mean TH/MH never touched it, ever - or it was cleaned somehow?

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by marplots

But that doesn't explain it. Unless you mean TH/MH never touched it, ever - or it was cleaned somehow?

Wouldn't someone who wanted to plant it clean it before planting to make sure that the dan they planted didn't get cross contaminated in some way? Wouldn't want the delivery guy's DNA on there, or Lenk's.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

Wouldn't someone who wanted to plant it clean it before planting to make sure that the dan they planted didn't get cross contaminated in some way? Wouldn't want the delivery guy's DNA on there, or Lenk's.

I don't know. It's a puzzler.

When they check for DNA, do they get all that's on there from everyone, or is there some signal/noise deal?

Here's a story about it: http://www.inquisitr.com/3238362/ste...ctims-car-key/

I don't know if it went anywhere. The article talks about an appeal in August 2016, but that apparently never happened. The case seems stalled at this point.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by marplots

I don't know. It's a puzzler.

Doesn't seem that puzzling to me. If I hand you a key and you are going to add suspects DNA and plant the key I would feel much better if you cleaned that key off first. I'd rather not be connected to the key in any way, thank you very much.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

Doesn't seem that puzzling to me. If I hand you a key and you are going to add suspects DNA and plant the key I would feel much better if you cleaned that key off first. I'd rather not be connected to the key in any way, thank you very much.

Clean it yourself, I got stuff to do.

That blood isn't going to steal itself.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by marplots

Clean it yourself, I got stuff to do.

I think that is exactly what I would do. Even if I used gloves while getting it. A quick wipe with an alcohol swipe just to make sure nothing of me is on there.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

I think that is exactly what I would do. Even if I used gloves while getting it. A quick wipe with an alcohol swipe just to make sure nothing of me is on there.

I would like to hear the prosecution's explanation for this item having only SA DNA on it. Or if the defense raised the issue with their experts.

[Kaosium]

I cam across a recent article laying out some of Zelner's announcement's on the case, including an update. Here's an excerpt:

Quote:

Here's a sampling:

Jan. 2, 2016: "Whoever deleted Teresa Halbach cellphone calls is either the murderer or part of cover up. Either way the killer is free."

May 9, 2016: Zellner posted a photo of exonerated former inmates hugging their mothers on Mother's Day. "Steven Avery needs to be in next year's photo - plan to make that happen."

July 5, 2016: "If you think we are just tweeting ... think again. A tsunami of new evidence is on the way."

Jan. 17, 2017: "Not 1 but 8 plants: bullets, bones, blood, camera, cellphone, PDA, key, car + false confession. World's best experts on it."

But the court of public opinion and a court of law are two different universes.

Zellner has yet to file a post-conviction petition on behalf of Avery, who turns 55 in July. He remains in prison, insisting he is innocent.

"The prediction that he'd be out by Mother's Day is slim to none," said Rob Bellin, a Neenah attorney who has closely followed the Halbach murder case over the years.

USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin reached out to Zellner late last week for comment regarding her predictions about the case and the criticism she has received from Avery supporters for not filing her long-awaited post-conviction motion in Manitowoc County court.

"Next time you hear from me will be when I file Steven Avery's motion," Zellner wrote in her email response. "I could care less what Steven Avery's supporters think. They have absolutely no comprehension of the procedural and forensic complexity of this case."

Zellner did not specify when she plans to file the motion.

The last significant legal filing on Avery's case was last Nov. 23. That's when she and the Wisconsin Attorney General's Office reached an agreement for independent scientific testing on nine items of evidence from the Halbach murder investigation.

"Mr. Avery will present his third party theory in his post-conviction petition that he will file once he obtains the new test results," Zellner wrote in her legal briefs last August.

Johnny Koremenos, director of communications for the state justice department, said "we have been informed that testing on the agreed upon evidentiary items is nearly complete."

Koremenos added that the state has "reason to believe that the defense will file a new motion within the next 45 to 60 days."

Zellner previously told USA TODAY NETWORK that the independent scientific testing should be finished in March.

On March 18, she tweeted, "To all the skeptics, doubters & haters just be patient because we are really going to make you mad." Zellner did not again tweet about Avery's case until last Friday, when she posted this: "Would not still be rep. SA if the test results proved his guilt. Winning takes a little longer than losing."

In her email last week to USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin, Zellner said "this is not a simple DNA case where I submit samples and await the results."

"My only obligation is to Mr. Avery," Zellner wrote. "My predecessors all failed because they did not do a thorough and comprehensive job. I will not be making the same mistake."

As of two months ago she seemed pretty positive the testing results would really irritate "skeptics, doubters and haters" and it seems there's been little progress since then, though I don't doubt that it would take time to prepare for a legal undertaking of this nature.

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by marplots

I would like to hear the prosecution's explanation for this item having only SA DNA on it. Or if the defense raised the issue with their experts.

I don't know what the prosecution said, but I can think of a possibility:

Avery cleaned the key but in doing so managed to deposit his DNA there. We're not talking about the brightest tool in the shed and he might well have an incomplete if not entirely outdated understanding of the possibility of transfer and perhaps used a rag with his DNA on it to wipe it off.

I can also think of an explanation of his DNA being on her hood latch. He ran a junkyard, those places have to drain the fluids when they salvage cars, that often means they have containers with washer fluid handy and that's something that you can pop the hood and fill up in thirty seconds cheaply. It's not disputed that she'd been up there to take pictures and had she come in with a dirty windshield he could have just had her pop the hood and filled it up.

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

Avery cleaned the key but in doing so managed to deposit his DNA there. We're not talking about the brightest tool in the shed and he might well have an incomplete if not entirely outdated understanding of the possibility of transfer and perhaps used a rag with his DNA on it to wipe it off.

This is possible, but I have a simpler scenario: Steven Avery had sweaty palms and handled the key for a few minutes, maybe even playing with it. His hands wiped off Haselbachs' DNA to a significant degree - rule of thumb is you wipe off 70% of the sample almost immediately - and deposited disproportionately more of his DNA than would be common. Whatever victims' DNA was left on the key was too little to be visible next to Steven Averys'.

McHrozni

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by McHrozni

This is possible, but I have a simpler scenario: Steven Avery had sweaty palms and handled the key for a few minutes, maybe even playing with it. His hands wiped off Haselbachs' DNA to a significant degree - rule of thumb is you wipe off 70% of the sample almost immediately - and deposited disproportionately more of his DNA than would be common. Whatever victims' DNA was left on the key was too little to be visible next to Steven Averys'.

McHrozni

Are the electropherograms available in this case or is there any expectation they might be in the future?

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

Are the electropherograms available in this case or is there any expectation they might be in the future?

It's good to see you back Kaosium.
I suspect they are, after reading Jerome Buting's book Illusion of Justice.

It seems that nothing explains this key that involves Steve Avery. If he cleaned it he is showing he knows it is a problem for him. It is not a difficult object to eliminate from the crime scene in that case, so obviously he did not clean it and keep it.

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by Samson

It's good to see you back Kaosium.
I suspect they are, after reading Jerome Buting's book Illusion of Justice.

It seems that nothing explains this key that involves Steve Avery. If he cleaned it he is showing he knows it is a problem for him. It is not a difficult object to eliminate from the crime scene in that case, so obviously he did not clean it and keep it.

Good point, and thanks for the answer and welcome back.

I read about the first fifteen pages in this thread and then skipped to the end to see how it was going. Although Avery comes from my part of the world I suffer from 'Avery-fatigue' being as it seems he's been a regular feature of the WSJ (Wisconsin State Journal our local newspaper) since I was in high-school. Reading about it again brings to mind the Casey Stengel quote 'Can't anybody here play this game?' He was innocent, proved guilty, then innocent again, then guilty of something worse and now might not be guilty of that either. Ugh.

I've no real idea what happened, though it appeared reading through what I did you have strong views on the subject. I recall you making an argument I didn't quite understand upthread about the body possibly being burned beforehand due to the condition of the body, could you expand upon that or correct me if I misunderstood?

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

Good point, and thanks for the answer and welcome back.

I read about the first fifteen pages in this thread and then skipped to the end to see how it was going. Although Avery comes from my part of the world I suffer from 'Avery-fatigue' being as it seems he's been a regular feature of the WSJ (Wisconsin State Journal our local newspaper) since I was in high-school. Reading about it again brings to mind the Casey Stengel quote 'Can't anybody here play this game?' He was innocent, proved guilty, then innocent again, then guilty of something worse and now might not be guilty of that either. Ugh.

I've no real idea what happened, though it appeared reading through what I did you have strong views on the subject. I recall you making an argument I didn't quite understand upthread about the body possibly being burned beforehand due to the condition of the body, could you expand upon that or correct me if I misunderstood?

If we accept it was her bones then the body was absolutely not burned on Steve's precinct, this is simple observational science. It really looks like a job for an animal disposal or human furnace. Although Charlie Wilkes suggested a propane burner in the adjacent quarry was plausible.
It beggars belief the jury could imagine the crown narrative of Steve dancing round a fire, which shows what dangerous assemblages of people they are.

Steve made a recorded 15 minute call to girlfriend Jodi in prison at 5pm.
How did he sound? Totally patient, totally loving, totally normal.
Had he already killed a pretty young woman known to have visited him, and who could expect to have an expectant entourage of friends missing her immediately?

The whole case is a nonsense, Avery was framed in the most despicable way by liars and desperadoes. Incredibly they got away with it.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by Samson

Steve made a recorded 15 minute call to girlfriend Jodi in prison at 5pm.
How did he sound? Totally patient, totally loving, totally normal.
Had he already killed a pretty young woman known to have visited him, and who could expect to have an expectant entourage of friends missing her immediately?

The whole case is a nonsense, Avery was framed in the most despicable way by liars and desperadoes. Incredibly they got away with it.

Maybe the liars and desperadoes managed to fake being "Totally patient, totally loving, totally normal."

[Samson]

Originally Posted by marplots

Maybe the liars and desperadoes managed to fake being "Totally patient, totally loving, totally normal."

Before or after killing a young woman who would surely be sought quickly?

If after, the body and car are already concealed for processing. If before Teresa is tied up and rendered mute for killing after the phone call.

What happens when people look for her?
You see where this leads?
Zellner got cellphone pings 12 miles away. Sounds like the truth to me and Avery is eliminated as a suspect with a cast iron alibi, so he was framed.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by Samson

Zellner got cellphone pings 12 miles away. Sounds like the truth to me and Avery is eliminated as a suspect with a cast iron alibi, so he was framed.

What does that mean? I don't understand the evidentiary value of this. Could you explain it to me?

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

Are the electropherograms available in this case or is there any expectation they might be in the future?

I haven't seen any, but in this case they might not help Steven Avery at all. Touch clues are weak by default and it is likely in the scenario I described above the DNA of the victim would not be discernible from noise. Therefore even if you proved absence of detectable DNA of the victim from the key you couldn't use it for anything. You might be able to show her DNA is likely present on the key, but this would only serve to disrupt the arguments presented by the defense.

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by marplots

What does that mean? I don't understand the evidentiary value of this. Could you explain it to me?

Steven Avery was recorded talking via the phone to his girlfriend doing time for a DUI (I think) around the time of the murder. It would be difficult for him to kill Theresa Haslbach, load her body in the Rav4, drive at least 12 miles away from his home and come back in time for the phone conversation.

McHrozni

[Samson]

Originally Posted by marplots

What does that mean? I don't understand the evidentiary value of this. Could you explain it to me?

Zellner analysed the cell phone tower evidence, and Halbach's phone pinged 12 miles away after she left Avery's yard. That was the last ping.
This is why she feels entitled to use inadequate defence as an argument and Strang and Buting are perfectly happy about that.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by Samson

Zellner analysed the cell phone tower evidence, and Halbach's phone pinged 12 miles away after she left Avery's yard. That was the last ping.
This is why she feels entitled to use inadequate defence as an argument and Strang and Buting are perfectly happy about that.

Considering she's been saying this for a year, I'm skeptical. Defense attorneys say a lot of things.

After reading a bit more about how cell phone towers work (and this goes back to 10 year ago cell phone towers), there's plenty to wonder about. The evidentiary value of "pings" can vary from "really good" to "proves nothing."

This covers the situation generally quite well, especially in the later posts if you scroll down: http://georgezipperer.blogspot.com/2...t-by-phil.html

And this links it to the Steven Avery case: http://crimefeed.com/2016/03/kathlee...irtight-alibi/

I'm going to have to reserve judgement on this one under the heading, "can't tell with what they've released so far." (I smell dueling experts down the road.)

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by marplots

Considering she's been saying this for a year, I'm skeptical. Defense attorneys say a lot of things.

After reading a bit more about how cell phone towers work (and this goes back to 10 year ago cell phone towers), there's plenty to wonder about. The evidentiary value of "pings" can vary from "really good" to "proves nothing."

This covers the situation generally quite well, especially in the later posts if you scroll down: http://georgezipperer.blogspot.com/2...t-by-phil.html

And this links it to the Steven Avery case: http://crimefeed.com/2016/03/kathlee...irtight-alibi/

I'm going to have to reserve judgement on this one under the heading, "can't tell with what they've released so far." (I smell dueling experts down the road.)

The ping could have substantial value if it was a little bit more, such as pings until the next morning at that location, then a return back to the Avery yard before being shut down. With just a single ping it is difficult to say the phone moved at all. GSM cell towers (common at the time, I think?) have a built-in range of 22 miles, so it is plausible the phone pinged a tower 12 miles away for reasons other than moving away from the residence.

This case will be a tall order for the defense unless they can produce something more solid than what we've seen so far.

McHrozni

[marplots]

Originally Posted by McHrozni

The ping could have substantial value if it was a little bit more, such as pings until the next morning at that location, then a return back to the Avery yard before being shut down. With just a single ping it is difficult to say the phone moved at all. GSM cell towers (common at the time, I think?) have a built-in range of 22 miles, so it is plausible the phone pinged a tower 12 miles away for reasons other than moving away from the residence.

This case will be a tall order for the defense unless they can produce something more solid than what we've seen so far.

McHrozni

I can't tell either. I can't tell if Zellner is just being enthusiastic or she has the goods. The longer the clock ticks, the more I wonder why she hasn't filed an appeal yet. Maybe she's just accumulating as much as possible, hoping a judge will "bite" on something. Right now, the cell phone stuff seems ambiguous at best - unless TH had some kind of GPS ping capability on her phone, which I don't even know. Was that common back in 2005?

What a job. Rewind the records back to 2005 to see what towers were where, what equipment they had, what records were kept by the phone company, what those records actually show... and although I'm no radio geek, I get the whole thing about signals skipping, network software negotiating with various demands, and the problems with calculating distances based on signal return times.

Maybe she can get a new trial based on wanting to run whatever new evidence she has by a jury. That might be enough, even if we don't think there's much there.

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by Samson

If we accept it was her bones then the body was absolutely not burned on Steve's precinct, this is simple observational science. It really looks like a job for an animal disposal or human furnace. Although Charlie Wilkes suggested a propane burner in the adjacent quarry was plausible.

Is there expert testimony to this effect available or is there an expectation there will be soon?

Originally Posted by Samson

It beggars belief the jury could imagine the crown narrative of Steve dancing round a fire, which shows what dangerous assemblages of people they are.

Well, if you grow up hearing about the likes of Ed Gein and Jeffrey Dahlmer, perps dancing around a fire in elation thinking they got away with murder seems rather mundane.

Originally Posted by Samson

Steve made a recorded 15 minute call to girlfriend Jodi in prison at 5pm.
How did he sound? Totally patient, totally loving, totally normal.
Had he already killed a pretty young woman known to have visited him, and who could expect to have an expectant entourage of friends missing her immediately?

The whole case is a nonsense, Avery was framed in the most despicable way by liars and desperadoes. Incredibly they got away with it.

It sounds like the case made against him was nonsense, it doesn't look to me like they ever found the actual murder site, and there may well have been a frame--but guilty people can get fit up too. Additionally I wouldn't have much trouble believing someone else might have decided the best place to dispose of an inconvenient body would be Steven Avery's place and later getting some 'help' from police who really wanted a conviction in this one....

Outside this thread I've googled a bit but have yet to find a site which goes over the evidence in detail. Do you know of one?

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by McHrozni

I haven't seen any, but in this case they might not help Steven Avery at all. Touch clues are weak by default and it is likely in the scenario I described above the DNA of the victim would not be discernible from noise. Therefore even if you proved absence of detectable DNA of the victim from the key you couldn't use it for anything. You might be able to show her DNA is likely present on the key, but this would only serve to disrupt the arguments presented by the defense.

McHrozni

Although the kits at the time (2005) likely don't support any analysis below the ~50-100 RFU level, there may well be alleles discernible from noise down to the ~20 RFU level. I was just curious if the electropherogram would come out looking like a reference sample (very little possibility of an additional person contributing) or something that suggested that perhaps another person might have contributed.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

Is there expert testimony to this effect available or is there an expectation there will be soon?



Well, if you grow up hearing about the likes of Ed Gein and Jeffrey Dahlmer, perps dancing around a fire in elation thinking they got away with murder seems rather mundane.



It sounds like the case made against him was nonsense, it doesn't look to me like they ever found the actual murder site, and there may well have been a frame--but guilty people can get fit up too. Additionally I wouldn't have much trouble believing someone else might have decided the best place to dispose of an inconvenient body would be Steven Avery's place and later getting some 'help' from police who really wanted a conviction in this one....

Outside this thread I've googled a bit but have yet to find a site which goes over the evidence in detail. Do you know of one?

2006 defence attorney Jerome Buting's book Illusion of Justice really is the goods. He is an impressive human being who focusses on what is completely known. This is the path to knowledge in the case IMO.
On kindle

https://www.amazon.com/Illusion-Just...ion+of+justice

$16.17

Initially you can skip the autobio and the other few cases and get the Steve Avery story.

The other book is Shaun Attwood who did a decent lag for drugs and became a writer while inside

Unmaking a murderer

https://www.amazon.com/Un-Making-Mur...ing+a+murderer

$5.66

He offers a crime theory at the end.

No one is suggesting Lenk shot her, but it intrigues me that

1. The killing was an execution by the rear and down bullet trajectories
2. Compliance with an LE command would achieve this, hands on roof of car and so on.

I wonder who else can achieve this, though a burned body of course eliminates other evidence of being beaten senseless first.

I totally discount Avery involvement because no logistical solution explains the evidence of the crime scene, behavioural or forensic.
Unfortunately prosecutors are not required to connect these dots, so Knox, Bamber, Lundy and so on get arrested anyway.
Plausible crime reconstructions are the missing elephants in these rooms.

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by Samson

2006 defence attorney Jerome Buting's book Illusion of Justice really is the goods. He is an impressive human being who focusses on what is completely known. This is the path to knowledge in the case IMO.
On kindle

https://www.amazon.com/Illusion-Just...ion+of+justice

$16.17

Initially you can skip the autobio and the other few cases and get the Steve Avery story.

The other book is Shaun Attwood who did a decent lag for drugs and became a writer while inside

Unmaking a murderer

https://www.amazon.com/Un-Making-Mur...ing+a+murderer

$5.66

He offers a crime theory at the end.

No one is suggesting Lenk shot her, but it intrigues me that

1. The killing was an execution by the rear and down bullet trajectories
2. Compliance with an LE command would achieve this, hands on roof of car and so on.

I wonder who else can achieve this, though a burned body of course eliminates other evidence of being beaten senseless first.

I totally discount Avery involvement because no logistical solution explains the evidence of the crime scene, behavioural or forensic.
Unfortunately prosecutors are not required to connect these dots, so Knox, Bamber, Lundy and so on get arrested anyway.
Plausible crime reconstructions are the missing elephants in these rooms.

Thank you for the input and links, it looks like I ought to do some reading.

One last thing I came across reading the early pages of the thread that I found curious and haven't seen anything about lately is the police call for the victim's plates that was recorded some two days before her vehicle was found, if I remember that correctly.

Has there been any explanation of that curiosity?

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

Thank you for the input and links, it looks like I ought to do some reading.

One last thing I came across reading the early pages of the thread that I found curious and haven't seen anything about lately is the police call for the victim's plates that was recorded some two days before her vehicle was found, if I remember that correctly.

Has there been any explanation of that curiosity?

Well yes, the form of the call is regarded as demonstrating Colborn was looking at the vehicle when he made the call.
As I say, Buting is very good for these details, I see Chris quoting from the book also.
I hate to say it to a local, but Mignini is a novice compared to these guys and dolls.

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by Samson

Well yes, the form of the call is regarded as demonstrating Colborn was looking at the vehicle when he made the call.

I came across this site in trying to answer my own question, here's what they wrote about that:

Quote:

Teresa's Rav 4 on the Avery lot

The defense also claimed the car was planted on the Avery lot. They alleged it could've been driven onto the lot by a back route, unnoticed by the Avery family living on the property. Their key piece of evidence was a phone call to dispatch made by Sergeant Andy Colborn of the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department. On November 3rd or 4th, just after Teresa was reported missing, Colborn made a call to dispatch. In the call, he gave Teresa's plate number and asked dispatch to run it, asking, "See if it comes back to that missing girl?" Dispatch confirmed it was registered to Teresa Halbach, who was missing. Colborn then asks, "'99 Toyota?" Dispatch confirms, they exchange thank-yous, and the call ends.

Defense questioned Colborn on why he would make this call if he was not looking at the car. Colborn testifies that he was not looking at the car at the time. He does not remember the exact circumstances of the call, but assumes he had been told by Inv. Wiegert from Calumet County that there was a missing person's case, and given the plate number. He testifies, "I'm just trying to get -- you know, a lot of times when you are driving a car, you can't stop and take notes, so I'm trying to get things in my head. And by calling the dispatch center and running that plate again, it got it in my head who that vehicle belonged to and what type of vehicle that plate is associated with."

While the defense tries to frame this call as incriminating, simply listening to it causes problems for them. Neither Colborn nor the dispatcher sound excited, nervous, or confused. Their tones sound as though they're both participating in a routine call to confirm information. It is common for officers to call dispatch to confirm information they received in the field- for example, if they wrote it down sloppily, or were rushed when they received it. If this call was out of the ordinary, the dispatcher may at least ask if he had found it.

It is also of note that Colborn uses the phrase "'99 Toyota?" when confirming the information. While it is possible he could be looking at the car and determining the model year by sight, it's highly unlikely. Most people cannot guess the exact model year of a vehicle by looking at it, and would say something more along the lines of "Toyota Rav 4" if they were asking about a vehicle they were trying to identify, as opposed to confirming information given to them.

(formatting mine for ease of reading)

I don't find all these arguments convincing, for example I'm pretty damn sure every cop knows they can check the tenth digit of the VIN (which on a '99 Rav 4 is visible through the window on the driver's side dash) for the model year, and if necessary could pop the hood and check the catalyst sticker, so I don't think the explanation above is absolutely convincing, but the basic idea of the call simply being a double-check is not implausible to me.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

I came across this site in trying to answer my own question, here's what they wrote about that:



I don't find all these arguments convincing, for example I'm pretty damn sure every cop knows they can check the tenth digit of the VIN (which on a '99 Rav 4 is visible through the window on the driver's side dash) for the model year, and if necessary could pop the hood and check the catalyst sticker, so I don't think the explanation above is absolutely convincing, but the basic idea of the call simply being a double-check is not implausible to me.

I generally agree, but we went over this here and on IA, ultimately concluding he was looking at the car.
There was much communication between Rory Hillegas and the cops soon after the disappearance, unexplained as I recall. As we agreed upthread the discovered key, its provenance and forensic state in Steve's trailer is inconsistent with anything that makes sense, so I contend planted by those with motive and opportunity, Lenk and so on. The rav4 looks planted to be found, so not Steve, and so on.
But Buting covered everything I had questions on.
I find reading the books sorts the narrative, with obviously very enigmatic gaps in this case.
I don't think it makes much more sense than the big bang in some ways.

[Wayward son]

Originally Posted by marplots

As far as I can tell, Zellner's strategy is to find enough doubt to convince an appellate judge that the case could not be made with whatever evidence is left over.

This has never been Zellner's strategy for post-conviction cases she has worked on. Her strategy has always been to overturn every single piece of evidence. To leave nothing on the table for a judge to cling onto. That is why she takes a little longer to get there, but also why she has overturned so many convictions. The documentary "Dream Killer" is a good example of showing how she works - in that case overturning the completely absurd Ryan Ferguson murder conviction. She wasn't satisfied with finding enough doubt, and appeals courts have consistently shown that they don't give a damn if almost all of the evidence has been over-turned and the little that remains looks absurd. It all must be overturned and shown to be bogus, or you are probably wasting your time.

People look at the time passing with nothing new coming out and assume that Zellner is not finding what she needs to bolster her case. The opposite is more likely the case. If she found evidence that confirmed SA was guilty she would have walked. Instead, she is likely slowly building up a case that she feels the appeals will be unable to refuse. Of course, she is also working on other cases - for instance, she has a deadline for the Melissa Calusinski murder conviction appeal coming up soon.

Unlike the SA case where I thought it was 50/50 innocence/guilt, and lean more towards innocence because Zellner has taken the case on, the Calusinski case is a complete travesty for which the legal system should be embarrassed by itself, and the prosecution of her for murder was almost as absurd as the prosecution of Ferguson.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by Wayward son

(some snipped)

She [Zellner] wasn't satisfied with finding enough doubt, and appeals courts have consistently shown that they don't give a damn if almost all of the evidence has been over-turned and the little that remains looks absurd. It all must be overturned and shown to be bogus, or you are probably wasting your time.

We disagree here, at least to the "wasting your time" bit. If she argues ineffective assistance of counsel, with or without DNA, she's got a shot (statistically, see: https://www.innocenceproject.org/wp-...IAC_Report.pdf) of about 8 to 20% for reversal.

Quote:

People look at the time passing with nothing new coming out and assume that Zellner is not finding what she needs to bolster her case. The opposite is more likely the case. If she found evidence that confirmed SA was guilty she would have walked.

There is another possibility - she still believes he didn't do it, but hasn't found strong evidence either way.

It's been a year. How long do you think it will take?

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by marplots

I can't tell either. I can't tell if Zellner is just being enthusiastic or she has the goods. The longer the clock ticks, the more I wonder why she hasn't filed an appeal yet. Maybe she's just accumulating as much as possible, hoping a judge will "bite" on something. Right now, the cell phone stuff seems ambiguous at best - unless TH had some kind of GPS ping capability on her phone, which I don't even know. Was that common back in 2005?

No. At best a phone in 2005 might have the ability to use a bluetooth connection to a separate GPS device, sold separately. You had to manually engage the connection, which also drained the battery quite rapidly.

Quote:

What a job. Rewind the records back to 2005 to see what towers were where, what equipment they had, what records were kept by the phone company, what those records actually show... and although I'm no radio geek, I get the whole thing about signals skipping, network software negotiating with various demands, and the problems with calculating distances based on signal return times.

It's a waste of time, because you also have to prove Steven Avery was with the phone at the time. The prosecution alleges there were two culprits, it could be Brandon Dassey went on a little joyride with the Rav4 while Steven Avery was on the phone. A little *poof* like that and all your fancy calculations are worse than worthless.

This sort of calculations aren't done for present-day events, let alone for over a decade in the past. There are too many variables you can't account for.

Quote:

Maybe she can get a new trial based on wanting to run whatever new evidence she has by a jury. That might be enough, even if we don't think there's much there.

Having a new trial isn't enough, there is no proof evidence was planted. There is a lot of innuendo about it, but it doesn't rise above the level of suspicion. Framing someone for murder is a major offense and requires something more than a vial of blood the investigators had access to, a key that wasn't found until late in the investigation and a few odd clues about the crime scene.

McHrozni