The Key: Planted or Not? Impact?

[Karinna]

Eisenberg did testify about the cut marks, but was limited because she is not an 'expert' and couldn't say what instrument would have made those cut marks IIRC. I would imagine, those cuts could tell someone a lot, if they were done before or after the burning, but I don't think the testimony ever went that far. JMO

Also.... one thing that did come out in testimony is that the bones that were found in the barrel, represented bones from all over the body, which doesn't completely rule out dismemberment, but it did indicate that not just one body part was burned in the barrel.... and other parts in the fire pit.

This document entered into evidence shows the bones found in the barrel and in the quarry.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...berg-Pics-of-Cut-Marks-on-Halbach-Remains.pdf

Thanks for posting up the info. & the link missy.

 

[proudfootz]

Speaking of TH's missing keys, reminds me of this.

The lonely valet key was supposedly found lying on the floor next to Steven's nightstand on November 8, 2005.

http://stevenaverycase.com/timeline-of-halbach-case/#sthash.hKoPCExU.dpbs

Oddly enough, AC (one of the officers present during this search) seems to forget this happened when he wrote up a report about that day:

http://imgur.com/cFWOwjO

Just another loose end in a case that seems to consist of nothing but loose ends.

 

[dexter75]

Speaking of TH's missing keys, reminds me of this.

The lonely valet key was supposedly found lying on the floor next to Steven's nightstand on November 8, 2005.

http://stevenaverycase.com/timeline-of-halbach-case/#sthash.hKoPCExU.dpbs

Oddly enough, AC (one of the officers present during this search) seems to forget this happened when he wrote up a report about that day:

http://imgur.com/cFWOwjO

Just another loose end in a case that seems to consist of nothing but loose ends.

Colborn:facepalm:

Reports, phone calls...not exactly his strongest skillsets:wink:

 

[proudfootz]

It appears that self-serving reports are written only when needed. Probably a good idea to wait and see what the party line is going to be before committing anything to paper.

 

[wasnt_me]

I am not sold that the key they found was the one she used that day. It was the valet key, in other words, a spare. Her DNA wasn't even on it. They could have gotten it on the sly from someone who may have had access to it that thought it might help to bolster the case. It's really too bad that the cop responsible for finding it just so happened to be Lenk. Oh...and Colburn was there too. Sorry....neither of those guys should have ever been allowed anywhere near this investigation, let alone finding evidence.

They could have gotten the key from the folks who helped them find the car on November 3rd. I really believe that cop called in the tag, etc, because he was standing there at the car. I'm guessing to keep the case, he might have needed a search warrant? I don't know. I really do not understand why he wanted to wait to officially find it, but nothing he said made sense as to why he would call in a tag and ask if it's the missing woman's car if he was not looking at the car.

Pam and RH, or whoever was with him -- because can hear other voices around him -- must have led him there and they might have had the spare with the fob on it. He might have said they can't be the ones to find it in the middle of the night because they might get accused of planting it. Again, I don't know the reasons for these actions. So he might have removed the license and locked it in another car because he called it in and could later ask how he could do that if no tag was on it and it was locked.

Then, at some point, they put it in SA's drawer somewhere and then "found it." His DNA being on it from being in his dirty room was just a bonus.

But that depends on where the DNA was found, I think, and I am not deep enough in the case to know where, but I do know that if it's a fabric key fob that she used all the time, then it should have her DNA on it. I would like to know if it had unknown DNA on it.

But I do have a hard time believing that was the key. Where were her house keys? They weren't in the burn barrel. did they search every car on the lot for them? Because it would make so much more sense for Avery to have hidden the keys in another car on the lot, just like he supposedly did the license plate. Why not remove her fob and burn it?

that fob looks so clean. She was gripping it daily and not a smudge of dirt on it?

Maybe SA had it and washed it, but a woven fob like that? I find it hard to believe he washed off all of her DNA from it. And that's a problem for me. It reminds me of Rafeal's DNA on Meredith Kurcher's bra strap. Or the alleged DNA on the "too" clean knife at his house.

So when I ask these questions and I conclude the "spare" came from her loved ones who'd gone up there to find the car, I start wondering what else one of THEM planted for the police. I mean, maybe one of THEM put in SA's trailer. Didn't the police let them on the property? Maybe one of THEM handed it to the police and wanted to be anonymous, so the police agreed to "find" it in the trailer?

I don't know, but I do know that the following makes reasonable doubt:

1. The cop's call in to the police to run the tag on November 3rd.

2. Pam going directly to the car pretty much on the 4th and having a camera handy, prepared in case she "finds" something. The cop probably told her to delete any pics she took the night of nov. 3rd. I have to say, the last thing I'm thinking about is bringing a camera at a time like that. I'm even thinking, I don't want to find anything, so why the camera? I mean, what if Teresa was in the car? But they already knew she wasn't because they'd already searched the car.

3. Unknown prints on the car. So they also probably went in the car. Which is why their are known prints on the trunk (or they are the real killer's prints) and that could be another reason the cop was like, "Nope. You went in this car already? Before I got here? Look, this is how we have to do it because Steven already has a lawsuit against police. We'll just discover the car properly tomorrow. Delete your pics. Forget we were here or you will be facing charges for tampering with evidence. So which is it going to be? Because if we discover it tonight, you going in it probably means it can't be admitted as evidence."

4. Absence of her DNA on an item she should have held at least once a day.

5. Absence of house keys. Where are her other keys? Now, in the Jodi Arias trial, one of Travis' roommates did not have keys. So I would be satisfied if someone she lived with said that was the case, and the other tenants did not have them either. But is that really the only key in her life? That one car key? I don't know about that.


So with these things in mind, heck yeah, it really would affect my feelings about the other evidence. Now, if there was direct evidence against SA, like a video, then no, the key wouldn't matter as much, but a video can be altered.

 

[wasnt_me]

Okay, let's say they acquired a 'like' key. Where did they find the exact lanyard (blue with "Air National Guard" printed on it from the EAA convention TH's sister attended 2 years before) and fob her sister, Katie, gave her 2 summers before? She only had 1 of them and that's the very same fob found on the key. Katie ID'd the key and fob on the witness stand. The fob is the one she gave TH. (That's why you have to use actual evidence and testimony.) All the "what-ifs" get quickly whittled down when compared to actual evidence and actual testimony.

I just read Katie's testimony in both trials.I didn't see where she said that it was the only lanyard TH used. It was a free lanyard that they picked up at the event. They could have snagged a few if they were free. In fact, in BD's trial, Katie said she saw TH switch lanyards, though she didn't say the switched ones were identical or not.

The weird part about it is--

They had the neck part of the lanyard at trial. They had Katie connect the pieces. So now we have TH walking around with just a Fob? Because the neck part of this particular one was at home, I'm guessing. Or they had more than "one" of this "free lanyard" that was given out that day. Or maybe TH had switched Lanyards. Or maybe she just kept her spare key on the one lanyard fob and her other keys on the other lanyard FOB?

I don't see the neck part of the lanyard showing up in car photos, and I'm not sure how it was introduced into the chain of evidence.

For now, it seems like she was walking around holding a lanyard fob -- or this is her spare key, usually kept at home on that whole, connected lanyard. I don't know. Whoever does, I want to know. The Fob doesn't have any identifying print on it, so it could or it could not be from the lanyard pictured.



Where was this exhibit recovered from though?

 

[Justiceseeker35]

Hey ya! The neck part of the fob was found in the center console of the rav 4 by the crime lab but wasn't tested for prints/dna. There's not an indication that she had any reason to remove the fob from the neck piece. I feel like this fob and neck piece were worn at photo shoots when she didn't want to carry a purse and big key chain.

 

[missy1974]

Yep, as Justiceseeker said, the long part of the lanyard was found in the center console of the RAV4.

TH's keys... she had a house key, a garage key, a studio (work) key, a key to the school gym where she coached her sisters volleyball team, those are the one's I can think of off the top of my head

The thought never crossed my mind that TH or her sister may have had another lanyard that was exactly the same, since they were free, happy to see you go back to the beginning

If you are looking for anything specific, just let me know and I will see if I can find it for you ... although, it seems like you are doing a good job so far ;-)

 

[wasnt_me]

Hey ya! The neck part of the fob was found in the center console of the rav 4 by the crime lab but wasn't tested for prints/dna. There's not an indication that she had any reason to remove the fob from the neck piece. I feel like this fob and neck piece were worn at photo shoots when she didn't want to carry a purse and big key chain.

I can buy that. I couldn't find in the trial transcripts where the evidence collector said that about the location of the neck part, but I will accept that as true/possible. But I don't accept it as possible that she didn't put all of her keys on the same ring. Unless--the only thing that comes to mind is how some people have said that having too many keys on your key ring somehow messes up your alternator. I don't know how true that is, or if it's a relevant statement for newer cars. I say that because I was told about this a LONG time ago. at least 25 years ago.

This key keeps being called a Valet key. I had a valet key for my last car. Instead of a black-encased head, it was grey, so I could distinguish it from the main key, which had the black plastic head. It was for when someone else had possession of my car, but I didn't want them to be able to open the trunk, I think. Anyway, whatever it does, they must be calling this key a "valet" key because they know it's a limited function key.

While I agree with you that wearing the lanyard is reasonable while doing photography, why would she have that key around her neck and not the real, fully functional key? I mean, the answer could be as simple as she lost the real one--both copies, because you get two, right, plus a valet?

I got to read some of Andrew Colborn's testimony, and it seems that 3wks prior to November 3rd, he attended a hearing about Avery's lawsuit. Then, it seems that he actually talked to SA the night of the third. He claims he then went to the station and went to George Zipperer's house. I think that's how it went. I was falling asleep.

It seems to me that he had the opportunity to snoop around the salvage yard and pre discover the SUV. I don't think he planted it there, but I do think he was looking at the car when he called in the tag. I do believe he and the people with him removed the tag and put it in a different car to cover up the pre discovery. I have no other way to explain so far why he called that car tag in. I can't figure out right this second if he made that call Nov 3rd or Nov 4th.

What's interesting is Steven Avery's body language in the video clip when Colborn is cross examined about. Steven crosses his arms over his chest and has this look on his face like, "Yeah. Now what? Explain that!" It seemed genuine, but I am no body language expert.

[video=youtube;VZ9M9xjF_LI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ9M9xjF_LI[/video]

Colbert guesses he made the call after Weibert alerted him of the missing person, BUT...if that's the case, why call in the tag number if Weibert gave it to him already? And if Weibert hadn't given it to him, then he had to get it from somewhere, like off the car. Otherwise, the other conclusion is that he didn't trust the information the officer gave him for the missing person, but it would seem if that were the case, he'd address the call that way with Lynn instead of just asking about the tag and car type only.

Apparently Colborn didn't make a report of any of this until 8 or so months later, including the talk he'd had with SA Nov 3rd.

I have a problem with this.

I have not watched Making a Murderer. All I've watched is a dateline show that cut off before the end of it for some reason on youtube and some other youtube short clips about the case. I'm trying to just figure out what the heck happened, and I'm not debating from a position of guilt or innocence. I guess you can say I'm debating from the position of "I don't know if he did it, but this investigation seems shady as hell."

If TH was using the lanyard that day, I would like to know why the neck piece is in the car compartment and not missing, as in burned with her stuff. I guess she could have taken enough care to remove it before driving away, but that would insinuate that she got in the car, removed the lanyard, took off the fob, put the necklace part in the compartment, put the key in the ignition and left. Otherwise, why is it in the compartment? Would her killer take as much care to take the lanyard apart right there in the car?

If SA lured her into the his trailer, then it would stand the reason that she was wearing the lanyard at that time. I guess it's possible that he took the whole lanyard to the car to start it, but I don't find it reasonable that he put it the other half of it in the compartment or that it wouldn't have any of his blood on it. He didn't seem particularly "careful" about where his blood went in the car, so...

So if she removed it, she had to have left wherever she was. OR...whoever gave it to the police, gave them the whole thing, and the police put the other half in the car so that it linked with the car key they put in the house. I don't know.

And I seems like the fob was NOT tested--only the actual key. Is that true? I read how the tester said she tested it, but she only indicated the black part and the key part. Let me know if I missed where she tested the blue fob for anything.

 

[wasnt_me]

Yep, as Justiceseeker said, the long part of the lanyard was found in the center console of the RAV4.

TH's keys... she had a house key, a garage key, a studio (work) key, a key to the school gym where she coached her sisters volleyball team, those are the one's I can think of off the top of my head

The thought never crossed my mind that TH or her sister may have had another lanyard that was exactly the same, since they were free, happy to see you go back to the beginning

If you are looking for anything specific, just let me know and I will see if I can find it for you ... although, it seems like you are doing a good job so far ;-)

Thank you. And thanks everyone for the patience with a newcomer to the case.

So how do we know these are her other keys? And where the heck are they? I have a problem with this! I also have a problem with a 2000 degree fire that close to people's living spaces and that close to the dog, Bear! Where was Bear while this hot fire was going on?

 

[missy1974]

Here is the testimony about where the lanyard was found:

Michael Riddle testimony:

Q. And is that the Air National Guard lanyard that
you observed in the RAV4 vehicle?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And if you recall, can you tell us the
approximate location of that lanyard?
A. Yes, it was in the center console between the
driver's -- front driver's seat and the front
passenger seat.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...-Jury-Trial-Transcript-combined.pdf#page=4210


As for her keys and knowing it's a valet key... it's in the RAV4 manual, and I think it's a different shape than the "main" key. I believe KZ has put something similar in the Post Conviction Brief that she filed too. This was never brought up at the original trial, but the defense did bring up the fact that no other keys were found, or her purse. I have an issue with that still too lol I do not think the blue part of the lanyard was tested at all.

IMO the key that was found in SA's room looked new, it looked like it was freshly cut. When I first came here while I was watching MaM... the key was a big thing to me... there was just no way that I could figure out how that key wasn't planted by LE... and if the key was planted, why? and that just left everything else open to me.

The really hot fire? Your guess is as good as mine... we have questioned the same things, although I don't recall wondering where poor Bear was at the time... poor dog must have had all his hair singed after that hot of a fire. :thinking:

 

[wasnt_me]

Well, as you see from my avatar, I always have to think of where the dogs are when I'm doing something, so the moment i figured out how close he was to the supposed fire...

and I do have a problem with that. I need to understand if Bear was in the house, the garage or what.

I read a ton of police evidence reports. I hate them. But the one with the car tow said that they made a replica key to the car because they didn't have the originals.

So, what if the dealership, or whoever made it, made the replica and a valet? Just wondering...

I suppose the valet could be in her car in case she needed it. I couldn't imagine it would get much use. BUT if she stored it in the car in case she needed to hand it out, then that means her original was still on her. So where are her original keys? Why would the killer have to use the valet key? None of her family was worried about where her house keys were? I'd be scared as crap that the killer would be at our farm.





I found where I read it. The lab made the key copy. I can't find the report of when they first picked up the car from Avery's though. These reports are date nov 11 but include info about the copy key.

 

[missy1974]

From memory... the RAV4 was found the morning of Nov 5th at Avery's, was taken to the crime lab late that night (took longer than it should have). Nov 6th the RAV4 was first processed at the lab, BUT... the door was unlocked already and there is no record of who unlocked it or how.

In light of the lanyard being found in the center console and the key that should have been attached to it being found in SA's bedroom, it raises questions IMO.

 

[wasnt_me]

Yes, it raises lots of questions, especially if they want to claim the car was open, but I read something about Pam and nikole trying all the doors, and the doors were locked. Is that true? Sorry I can't cite it, but I read so much other stuff on blogs or reddit as I'm searching for this or that, and I forget it until a post like this makes me recall.

I was trying to find more reference to the copy key, but I didn't have any luck.I don't know how the lab made a copy key or what date they did it.

I was in the sub-thread about the trial, and I didn't realize it doesn't show up on the main board. I wrote some things that I observed from Dawn's testimony. If you guys would care to have a look and some discourse about it, I'd appreciate it. Post 11.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...rial-Day-2-02-13-2007&p=13547667#post13547667

 

[missy1974]

Here is your post from the link you posted wasnt_me

Dawn and the account information:

In Dawn's testimony, she claims that she had to make a new account because she could not find the account in the system. Her claim that she could barely understand Avery on the call doesn't hold water. She was able to get the complete address, name and number. Plus, if he requested the same person as last time, wouldn't she tell him on the phone that she couldn't find his acct, therefore, she has no idea who was out there last time?

This whole thing that she had to get him off the phone quickly, so she just made a new account business is bogus. What company wants you to rush a customer off the phone and just make a new account? How do you keep up with repeat customers if you just keep making new accounts when you can't find an account?

She probably couldn't find it because the account on the Sept work sheet says Tom Janda. The address is 12930 A Avery road. But the address Dawn put in the for 10/31 was 12930A Avery road.

The phone numbers are different. The one on 9/19/05 ends in 4860. The number Avery gave her ended in 8715.

But I don't see why Dawn couldn't have searched the records for just the last name Janda to find it. Why couldn't she try searching the address by separating the "A" from the rest of the house number? Why did she even write the A as part of the house number?

Dawn also says that if the photographer can't make the same-day call, AT will call back to reschedule. So does AT call back to say that photographer is indeed coming or do they just leave it up to the photographer? Because, from the way it appears, SA was just waiting around without a time unless he went into Janda's house and checked her messages. So how does he know if Teresa is actually coming?

Maybe that's why he calls in the afternoon a few times. I don't know why he *67 the number, and I wish we had his phone records, and hers, far enough back to see if he did indeed call her on her call phone for 10/10 and if he'd used *67 then also.

I don't understand why he didn't communicate again with AT to verify the appt. I don't understand why he would risk TH leaving a voicemail for Janda if he'd been intending to kill TH from the time he called AT. Why didn't he check Janda's messages or get Brendon to do it? It just makes no sense if you are premeditating murder but you never got call that your victim is indeed coming, and the number you gave to RSVP is in for a phone in someone else's house! Could he have used his landline to call Janda's voicemail box? Well, if so, you'd think he'd delete TH's message if he checked it, so...

The defense made a good case for the idea that he could have just straight up called Teresa without making an appointment for murder. And if he'd done that using *67, would this have been linked to him so quickly? Or at all?

My opinion of Dawn from AT... she's full of it. If you read her statements from the day she was reported missing and then read her testimony, it's hard to tell it's even the same person.

As for phone records, we do have them

TH's cell records - direct link to October 10th - He did call her and did not use *67

AT Toll Free call log for October 31st - http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Exhibit-74-Toll-Free-Records.pdf

From the Post Conviction Motion:

11:04 a.m.: Mr. Avery called AutoTrader from his landline (920-755-4860) (Toll
Free Records, P-C Exhibit 74), which was linked in the AutoTrader records to
Tom Janda's account. (11 /6/05 DCI interview of Angela Schuster (" 11 /6/05
Schuster Interview"), attached and incorporated herein as P-C Exhibit 75). Mr.
Avery confirmed that a photographer was corning to the Avery property to
photograph the Janda van and that the photographer would be arriving at
approximately 2:00 p.111. Mr. Avery confirmed the address of the Barbara Janda
appointment as being 12932 Avery Road. (Affidavit of Steven Avery, P-C
Exhibit 4). At this point in time, there can be no question that Ms. Pliszka knew
that the appointment, scheduled at 8:12 a.m., was made by Mr. Avery and that it
was to take place at the Avery property. The State omitted Mr. Avery's call to
Auto Trader at 11 :04 p.m. from its timeline to the jury. (Trial Exhibit 360).

The explanation for the *67 can be found in the recent SA affidavit:

11. Sometimes used the*67 features when l made calls from my cell phone. When l called
Ms. Halbach at 2:24 p.m. before she arrived and 2:35 p.m. on October 31,2005 after she
left, I dialed *67 so that if Ms. Halbach did not answer, she would not see my number and
feel like she had to return my call. I called at 2:24 p.m. to see when she would get there,
but she didn't answer the call.


Hope this helps

 

[wasnt_me]

Yeah, This case really sucks.

So am I right that:

812am dawn calls TH about Avery
942am TH confirms she'll do it.
11:04am SA calls looking for a confirm and gets it.
1143am--TH calls Janda and leaves message.

It's reasonable that, if he is guilty, he could have discussed this with his family and somehow gotten that message deleted. It's important to note we have her message, but we don't Zipperer's. And those people are scary to me.

It would stand to reason that SA is looking for her after 2pm if she's late, and Angela told him 2pm. The Zipperer's apparently were not looking for her at all. I don't like that none of them were around. She had to go behind the house to find the wife, and no one saw her leave. With her other two appointments, it went more smoothly and both men saw her leave. I don't know how you are a female and don't think to watch another female leave the property, but hey, that's just me. I always look out. You never know.

 

[missy1974]

8:12 am - SA calls AutoTrader. He must not have called the toll free number because it's not on their toll free records.

9:46am - Dawn at AT calls TH. (on her new cell records)

11:04 am - SA calls AT's toll free number from his house phone. (presumably to see if TH could make it that day.) IIRC SA stated this early on in his interviews too that he called or they called him to tell him that she would be there around 2pm, he couldn't remember which phone he used and told them to check his phone records.

11:10am - AT calls TH again. (only 5 seconds long)

11:44 am - TH calls Janda's.

As for the message on Janda's machine.... I saw a post on the family FB page within the last few months and Barb is pretty sure that the answering machine is hers in the video of the recorded voice message from TH.

Oh and also wanted to mention in case you didn't know wasnt_me... the reason the phone number associated with the Janda residence was different is because between September (when Tom had TH do pics of a car for him) and the end of October, he was no longer there. But it doesn't change the fact that Avery was still connected to the Janda's account. Like you said in another post... this should not have been hard to make the connection, and according to Dawn's first phone interview, it wasn't... she even said that the Janda's are basically the Avery's, she knew... somehow forgot by the time it went to trial, not sure why the defense didn't destroy her "I didn't know" poo.

 

[wasnt_me]

Yeah, I agree about Dawn. I'm not impressed at how the defense handled many of the witnesses. I'm on Nicole sturm right now, but I took a break and skipped over to the post conviction relief, and then I somehow got on the deer camp guy's blog. I'm reading what he said about the burn barrels getting all mixed up.

 

[missy1974]

Yeah, I agree about Dawn. I'm not impressed at how the defense handled many of the witnesses. I'm on Nicole sturm right now, but I took a break and skipped over to the post conviction relief, and then I somehow got on the deer camp guy's blog. I'm reading what he said about the burn barrels getting all mixed up.

ohhhhhhh those burn barrels! LOL I tried following them, there is a thread about it, the more I looked the more frustrated I got and honestly, after all this time, I am still not sure what barrel was what and which had bones and where they were found. This investigation was brutal. JMO

 

[wasnt_me]

At the very least, SA needs a new trial, and Brenden, too.