Bones

[proudfootz]

Without some sort of inventory of these bones, I couldn't feel very confident about guessing.

But I don't think it would be out of character for people who are eating something like barbecue to throw the bones in a bonfire.

MOO

 

[LifeCitizen]

Hi everyone

Sorry if I've missed it but I'm looking for the report made by Dr Eisenberg about the bones in the Rudy case. Can anyone help? TIA.

 

[Saul Vesalot]

Hi everyone

Sorry if I've missed it but I'm looking for the report made by Dr Eisenberg about the bones in the Rudy case. Can anyone help? TIA.

Is this what you want? Or at least close enough ? I haven't really read much of it yet, scanned documents are hard for me to focus on. Looks like the document was originally typed on a typewriter.

But she doesn't mince words. She clearly and specifically misidentifies something recovered from the burn pit as fetal remains on the very first page (and presumably later).


https://www.scribd.com/document/356572788/Eisenberg-Analysis-Rudy-OCR-Redacted

 

[missy1974]

thanks for the link Saul! I have never read that report before!!! I would still like to know what the heck she identified if the victim was later found??? really brings into question her reliability as an expert in bones IMO

 

[ACJL]

What are your theories as to why there were pieces of TH's bones in the burn barrel and in the quarry?

I don't think the bones in the quarry were Teresa's. All we know about them is that Eisenberg couldn't determine whether they were human or animal bones. There were like 13 (iirc?) bones found at the quarry all lying together, and ten of those were proven to be animal bones. The other three she said were too fragile to analyze but just by looking at them she couldn't decide if they were human or animal bones. That's all. However, one thing these bones didn't have in common with the bones found in the burn pit and burn barrel is that they had cuts and pricks on them. All thirteen. So to me that sounds like they were all animals bones and were once cooked and eaten. iirc the quarry site was also some kind of garbage dump.

There was also a difference between the bones in the burn pit and burn barrel. The ones in the burn pit were all very small, while only larger bones were found in the barrel. There were no small pieces found in the barrel and none of the pieces found in the pit were larger than the ones in the barrel. That doesn't really sound like someone using the barrel to carry the bones to the Salvage Yard and randomly pour them out over the pit (which is what the defense implied).

 

[missy1974]

I don't think the bones in the quarry were Teresa's. All we know about them is that Eisenberg couldn't determine whether they were human or animal bones. There were like 13 (iirc?) bones found at the quarry all lying together, and ten of those were proven to be animal bones. The other three she said were too fragile to analyze but just by looking at them she couldn't decide if they were human or animal bones. That's all. However, one thing these bones didn't have in common with the bones found in the burn pit and burn barrel is that they had cuts and pricks on them. All thirteen. So to me that sounds like they were all animals bones and were once cooked and eaten. iirc the quarry site was also some kind of garbage dump.

There was also a difference between the bones in the burn pit and burn barrel. The ones in the burn pit were all very small, while only larger bones were found in the barrel. There were no small pieces found in the barrel and none of the pieces found in the pit were larger than the ones in the barrel. That doesn't really sound like someone using the barrel to carry the bones to the Salvage Yard and randomly pour them out over the pit (which is what the defense implied).

I don't have the time at the moment to go looking at testimony or documents, can you tell me where she said that of the 13 bones, 10 were proven to be animal bones? I do recall that when she testifying, she couldn't determine if the iliac crest or hip bone was human or not, but it was referred to as "suspected human", and yes I do recall that that one bone had a vertical north to south straight cut on it, but I don't recall that the others that were found at the quarry also had cut marks.

As for the difference between the ones in the pit compared to the barrel.... IIRC, she said that ALL burnt bones from all 3 locations all had the same characteristics as far as the burning/charring/calcification. I don't recall ever seeing photo's or a description of the size of the bones found in the barrel, they were "long bones" from the body, but I don't think Eisenberg could even identify which long bones they were. Long bones was referring to the arm/leg bones, not the length or size of the remains, unless I'm not remembering correctly.

Unfortunately, I have had issues with the bones, and the remains and how they were handled from the beginning, and the fact that there are NO photos of the bones before they were disturbed, no description of where the bones were in the barrel (were they on the top? were they on the bottom?) And then my biggest concern is that Eisenberg around this time also identified fetal remains in a burn pit in another case, which makes no sense when months later the remians of the pregnant victim was found, along with fetal remains. Her credibility and expertise are in question IMO.

 

[ACJL]

I don't have the time at the moment to go looking at testimony or documents, can you tell me where she said that of the 13 bones, 10 were proven to be animal bones? I do recall that when she testifying, she couldn't determine if the iliac crest or hip bone was human or not, but it was referred to as "suspected human", and yes I do recall that that one bone had a vertical north to south straight cut on it, but I don't recall that the others that were found at the quarry also had cut marks.

From the March 1 testimony:

"Q: There were 10 bone fragments in total, or in addition to the pelvic bone fragments?"

"A. In addition."

"Q. Okay. So we're talking about a total of 13 bone fragments?"

...

"A. Correct."

Before these she already explained these three bones are pelvic girdle and pelvis bones. These are the three bones she couldn't determine whether they were human or not. Meaning the other 10 were not suspect.

but it was referred to as "suspected human"

She didn't say "suspected human", she said "suspected possible human". Quite the difference.

she said that ALL burnt bones from all 3 locations all had the same characteristics as far as the burning/charring/calcification.

Yes she did, but I'm no expert on this. I don't know what it means or tells us. Though you have to wonder if at least 10 of those 13 were animal bones, would it matter they had the same level as calcification as the human bones in Avery's pit? The time spent burning them would most likely have differed.

they were "long bones" from the body, but I don't think Eisenberg could even identify which long bones they were.

I'm not sure if Eisenberg ever stated their size, except, like you said, the bones being from larger body parts. Pevytoe though did comment on the size, saying they were "noticeably larger" on March 8, and Fairgrieve agreed on March 9.

Unfortunately, I have had issues with the bones, and the remains and how they were handled from the beginning

I agree, it was a hasty mess.

and the fact that there are NO photos of the bones before they were disturbed

True, but that is the fault of The DCI and/or Calumet iirc. Not MTSO.

no description of where the bones were in the barrel (were they on the top? were they on the bottom?)

I believe that was answered? But can't remember by whom. What does it matter though?

Her credibility and expertise are in question IMO

Everybody makes mistakes, but nobody has, afaik, ever refuted her claims about the bones in the pit, barrel and quarry. You need more than her opinion on a different case to prove she was wrong in this case.

 

[missy1974]

From the March 1 testimony:

"Q: There were 10 bone fragments in total, or in addition to the pelvic bone fragments?"

"A. In addition."

"Q. Okay. So we're talking about a total of 13 bone fragments?"

...

"A. Correct."

Before these she already explained these three bones are pelvic girdle and pelvis bones. These are the three bones she couldn't determine whether they were human or not. Meaning the other 10 were not suspect.

That is not what I got from reading her testimony.

This link will take you directly to the testimony about the 10 + 3 bones.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...Trial-Transcript-Day-14-2007Mar01.pdf#page=23

I have gone and read it and it is not as simple as you posted. I also asked if you could show me where she said that the 10 were proven to be animal or not human.

From page 25:
Q. Okay. Were you later able to establish more in terms of separating nonhuman from human among the 10 bone fragments we're discussing now?

A. I was.

Q. And what did you -- what was the separation you eventually made?

A. I do not have my working notes here with me in court today and I am, unfortunately, not able to answer that question with any certainty.

Q. Just don't remember now?

A. I do not.

Q. Do you remember the bottom line being that the three pelvic area bones that you have described, you continue to suspect may be human, but can't be certain?

A. That is correct.

Q. And as to the other 10 charred bones, are there some that you continue to suspect may be human, but can't be certain?

A. There is that possibility. I should say that none of those fragments are diagnostic; in other words, I cannot associate them with one particular bone or another.

So, now we have established that Eisenberg has NOT proven that all 10 of the other bones were not human, right? It certainly reads like some but not all may have been deemed non-human, but she couldn't remember and didn't have her notes.

She didn't say "suspected human", she said "suspected possible human". Quite the difference.

hmmm okay. Either way, they were not proven to not be human. The fact that those same bones were not represented within the other bones found elsewhere, sure seems coincidental, but that's just my opinion ;-)

Yes she did, but I'm no expert on this. I don't know what it means or tells us. Though you have to wonder if at least 10 of those 13 were animal bones, would it matter they had the same level as calcification as the human bones in Avery's pit? The time spent burning them would most likely have differed.

Okay, wait, we are back to the 10 being animal bones, but I don't know this at all. The bones looking the same or similar is just an indication that they were burned together and some of the bones were moved. Regardless of where the original burn site was, some were moved, we know this because bones were found in the barrel and possibly the quarry as well. The bones in the barrel represented different parts of the body, so it did not indicate that just portions of the body were burned there and others elsewhere (uggh I hate typing that)

here is a link to the graphic that shows which bones were represented in the barrel (scapula, long bones, vertebrae and metacarpals): http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...berg-Pics-of-Cut-Marks-on-Halbach-Remains.pdf

The fact that the bones found in the quarry were similarly burned adds to the suspected human bone theory IMO.

It should also be mentioned that non-human burned bones were also found in the barrel, at the moment I can't recall if there were any in the burn pit.

I'm not sure if Eisenberg ever stated their size, except, like you said, the bones being from larger body parts. Pevytoe though did comment on the size, saying they were "noticeably larger" on March 8, and Fairgrieve agreed on March 9.

It wasn't only larger bones found in the barrel. It's been awhile since I've read all the testimony, so I will believe you

I agree, it was a hasty mess.

It really is unfortunate, I think more questions would have answers if the situation was handled better.

True, but that is the fault of The DCI and/or Calumet iirc. Not MTSO.

Okay, I don't disagree with you. The whole investigation was a mess IMO.

I believe that was answered? But can't remember by whom. What does it matter though?

It was not answered IIRC. If the bones were laying on the top of the other burned debris, that would be a pretty good indication that they were probably placed there, don't you think?

I'm not sure where you stand on the burn pit/bones issue? Do you agree that some of the bones were moved? regardless of where the original burn site was?

Everybody makes mistakes, but nobody has, afaik, ever refuted her claims about the bones in the pit, barrel and quarry. You need more than her opinion on a different case to prove she was wrong in this case.

I don't need anything else to have questions about Eisenberg. Others might, but I don't, because it's JMO


Welcome to the forum ACJL! I may not agree with you on everything, but nice to see a new face and it's been awhile since I have had a look at some of the docs! This is a slowwwwwwwww case, good to see there is still some interest in the forum

 

[ACJL]

That is not what I got from reading her testimony.

In addition she said

A. There were also nonhuman unboned burns -- burned --

Q. Unburned bones?

A. Unburned bones. Thank you.

Q. Okay.

A. Under that same tag number.

Which imo tells something about the likelihood of the other bones being human. Since they were all stashed together, and if the killer moved the bones from the quarry he would have to be able to distinguish human bone from animal bone.

Q. Okay. But 13 bone fragments that were burned?

A. Correct.

Q. Of the 13 charred bone fragments under tag 8675, only one of those was -- was clearly nonhuman?

A. No, certainly more than one was nonhuman.

Q. Of the 13?

A. Yes.

And then Strang quickly stops asking further about this. But so far you're right. Don't have the time right now to extensively search the files, maybe do that later. The focus seems to be on the three pieces mentioned earlier though.

hmmm okay. Either way, they were not proven to not be human. The fact that those same bones were not represented within the other bones found elsewhere, sure seems coincidental, but that's just my opinion ;-)

Some apparently were not human and we have some suspected possible human. If none of these were human there is nothing coincidental about it.

Okay, wait, we are back to the 10 being animal bones, but I don't know this at all. The bones looking the same or similar is just an indication that they were burned together and some of the bones were moved. Regardless of where the original burn site was, some were moved, we know this because bones were found in the barrel and possibly the quarry as well. The bones in the barrel represented different parts of the body, so it did not indicate that just portions of the body were burned there and others elsewhere (uggh I hate typing that)

The only movement we are sure of is from the barrel to the pit or vice versa. The movement from the quarry is still an unproven defense theory. If they were moved from the quarry pile to the pit you have to wonder why no non-human bones were brought along accidentally.



here is a link to the graphic that shows which bones were represented in the barrel (scapula, long bones, vertebrae and metacarpals): http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...berg-Pics-of-Cut-Marks-on-Halbach-Remains.pdf

The fact that the bones found in the quarry were similarly burned adds to the suspected human bone theory IMO.

Similarly burned or burned to the same degree are, I suspect, a pretty big difference though. Some of the bones in the quarry were non-human. They probably would've left the fire earlier than TH's cremains to be burned to the same degree.

It should also be mentioned that non-human burned bones were also found in the barrel, at the moment I can't recall if there were any in the burn pit.

non-human or suspected non-human?

It was not answered IIRC. If the bones were laying on the top of the other burned debris, that would be a pretty good indication that they were probably placed there, don't you think?

Maybe. Or quickly hidden.

I'm not sure where you stand on the burn pit/bones issue? Do you agree that some of the bones were moved? regardless of where the original burn site was?

I personally rule out the quarry as the burn site. No fire was seen there either, while a fire was seen at the Avery property. A burn pit fire and a burn barrel fire. We have Steven and Brendan first omitting and/or disagreeing (imo, lying) there was a fire, only to later admit there was. So they both omit themselves from the crime scene, before it was even known something happened there, only to later admit they were there because others had seen them or the fire.

I don't need anything else to have questions about Eisenberg. Others might, but I don't, because it's JMO

okay. Then I hope I'll never make one mistake in your presence though

Welcome to the forum ACJL! I may not agree with you on everything, but nice to see a new face and it's been awhile since I have had a look at some of the docs! This is a slowwwwwwwww case, good to see there is still some interest in the forum

thanks missy!

 

[ACJL]

It seems u can only edit ur posts shortly after u posted them?

Anyway, other reasons why I would rule out the quarry rubbish pile as the main burning location is because there were no teeth fragments found, or traces of lead, or pieces of her cloth there. If that was the primary burn location you'd expect to find at least something small as teeth fragments.

Did it look like the place was stoked for a long fire as well? I don't recall that.

 

[missy1974]

Yep, not sure how long we have to edit, but it's not long lol

I will have to do some looking later since I have to get to work, but again, because it was so poorly documented, we don't know much about the quarry.

 

[Karinna]

It seems u can only edit ur posts shortly after u posted them?

Anyway, other reasons why I would rule out the quarry rubbish pile as the main burning location is because there were no teeth fragments found, or traces of lead, or pieces of her cloth there. If that was the primary burn location you'd expect to find at least something small as teeth fragments.

Did it look like the place was stoked for a long fire as well? I don't recall that.

Here is one article i found on bones & the teeth.
(quote)
“The DNA evidence described above is not conclusive,” she continues. “How is it even possible for tissue to survive a fire that disintegrated 60% of the bone mass? The teeth which are commonly used to identify a body because they outlast bone didn’t even survive the fire.”
https://globalnews.ca/news/2576368/...uestions-if-bones-found-were-teresa-halbachs/

 

[ACJL]

Here is one article i found on bones & the teeth.
(quote)
“The DNA evidence described above is not conclusive,” she continues. “How is it even possible for tissue to survive a fire that disintegrated 60% of the bone mass? The teeth which are commonly used to identify a body because they outlast bone didn’t even survive the fire.”
https://globalnews.ca/news/2576368/...uestions-if-bones-found-were-teresa-halbachs/

I believe that articles' author must be misinformed, because there were about 24 tooth fragments of TH collected

 

[missy1974]

I had gone back and re-read some of the testimony the other day, but just haven't had the time to post some of the tidbits that I found... since I am snowed in today... I have nothing better to do! LOL

I had actually gone looking to see if I could find a description of the size of the bones in the barrel and burn pit. It's been over 2 years of going over these docs and I just couldn't recall ever reading about a comparison and I don't recall even a photo of the burn barrel remains (I find the pics of the bones deceiving, they don't look as small as they actually are!)

Let's start with Pevytoe, he said that the bones from the barrel were larger than from the pit... but I am a bit confused. Let me explain...

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...Trial-Transcript-Day-18-2007Mar07.pdf#page=10

Pevytoe wasn't called until the 9th and didn't go to the scene until the 10th. And the burn pit had already been excavated at this time, in fact, the bulk of the bones found were already sitting on Eisenberg's desk.



On the 12th according to his testimony, they went through the barrels (I will have to go look but I am pretty sure they had gone through these already.. numerous times, I'm confused)

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...Trial-Transcript-Day-18-2007Mar07.pdf#page=37

A. Yes, the fragmentation that I was finding from the burn pit was very small. Much of it was -- in some cases was the size of half of your little fingernail, if you will. Most of the bones were very fragmented in there. Where the bones that were recovered from that barrel on Saturday, the burn barrel, they were of larger mass.
​

Larger mass? still no real good description or comparison of the size of the bones, but he didn't see the bulk of the bones that had already been removed and sitting in the box.


Here is Eisenberg's testimony about the box:

Eisenberg testimony:

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...rial-Transcript-Day-13-2007Feb28.pdf#page=130

A The next four-by-six color photograph, marked Exhibit 383, depicts the, uh, contents of the initial box that was submitted to me, uh, for examination, uh, under Calumet County Sheriff's Office Tag 8318. This was a box that was left for me, um, at my office on November 9 of 2005. That on the following day, I brought it to the Dane County Coroner's Office Morgue, uh, to examine.
​

No way that Pevytoe was involved in the removal of those bones since he didn't even get to the burn pit until the 10th.


So skip forward to Fairgrieve's testimony, because I didn't see anywhere in Eisenberg's testimony that the actual size of these bones were described!

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...rial-Transcript-Day-20-2007Mar09.pdf#page=192

Q. You spoke of the -- on the average, of the fragments in the burn barrel being larger than, on the average, the fragments in the burn area --
A. Yes.
Q. -- behind the garage? What were the largest fragments you saw of bone here, regardless where found?
A. As I recall, I believe it was the cranial fragments.
Q. And about how big were those?
A. Oh, I would say, looked like about an inch and a half in diameter.
Q. Okay.
A. Something on that order.
Q. So when we're talking about large and small --
A. Yeah.
Q. -- as I understand, everything here is about an inch and a half on down, to smaller than that?
A. From what I recall, yes.​

So we finally get a description of the size, and the largest bone or bones were the cranial bones which were found in the burn pit. When looking at previous testimony, it does make it sound like the bones in the barrel were much larger, not sure why the defense didn't make this more clear long before Fairgrieve testified! It's all about the wording... on average the bones were larger because the majority of the remains were found in the pit, but the largest were actually found in the pit (if we exclude the pelvic bones in the quarry)

Anyway... it is something that I don't recall ever looking into before, so was interesting to go back and read the testimony!

Does anyone recall a photo of the remains found in the burn barrel? I couldn't seem to find one.

 

[missy1974]

ACJL....

I can't seem to find anything that says the bones in the quarry were found with garbage... can you direct me to where I could find that? I don't recall that at all. I do recall that it might have been a common area to burn animal remains though, which makes sense since there were non-human bones that were found there as well. (I wonder what animal those other bones belonged too, the confirmed non-human ones?)

 

[Karinna]

I believe that articles' author must be misinformed, because there were about 24 tooth fragments of TH collected

Yes "fragments",and normally in fires involving a human being the teeth survive high temperatures, and it is normally how victims of incineration are identified through their dental records when everything else is burned beyond recognition.
So whoever did the crime was trying to make sure the remains of the victim were unrecognizable, IMO.

 

[Karinna]

(quote)
Zellner wrote in her August 26, 2016 motion that bones found in Radandt's quarry, which included a pelvis, were suspected to be human:

"State expert Leslie Eisenberg testified that the volume of bones discovered in the burn pit was 'two-to three-fifths of what might be expected.' Dr. Eisenberg also admitted that the bones had been moved prior to their location in Mr. Avery’s burn pit. Dr. Eisenberg testified that she suspected that the bones found in the Radandt quarry, which included a pelvis, were human."

During Zellner's press conference on August 26, 2016, she said that only 30 percent of the bones were recovered and 29 of the teeth were never recovered
http://georgezipperer.blogspot.com.au/2016/10/was-teresa-halbachs-last-stop-hustle.html

 

[missy1974]

Hi Karinna! Nice to "see" you

What you posted is from a blog, and I've read it, sometimes it's a bit off though! Eisenberg did agree that bones were moved.. her opinion was that the burn pit was the burn site, but did agree that she could not be certain. She agreed that bones were moved because there was at least 1 (if not 2 including the quarry) where other bones were found and she didn't believe that the body was dismembered and burned IIRC.

She did testify that only 40 percent of the remains were found. Which does lead to the question... where are the rest?

ACJL is right, 24 tooth fragments were found, but again, leads to the question of... where are the rest?

I did find a few more things that I made a note of when I looked back at the testimony, and one of them was that there was clothing in the burn pit. How does clothing survive what was supposed to be a massive fire? But 60% of the remains and those other teeth didn't?

I *think* I have come to the conclusion that there is another burn site altogether. Whether it was Kuss Rd., another quarry, and incinerator, somewhere else.

 

[Karinna]

Hi Karinna! Nice to "see" you

What you posted is from a blog, and I've read it, sometimes it's a bit off though! Eisenberg did agree that bones were moved.. her opinion was that the burn pit was the burn site, but did agree that she could not be certain. She agreed that bones were moved because there was at least 1 (if not 2 including the quarry) where other bones were found and she didn't believe that the body was dismembered and burned IIRC.

She did testify that only 40 percent of the remains were found. Which does lead to the question... where are the rest?

ACJL is right, 24 tooth fragments were found, but again, leads to the question of... where are the rest?

I did find a few more things that I made a note of when I looked back at the testimony, and one of them was that there was clothing in the burn pit. How does clothing survive what was supposed to be a massive fire? But 60% of the remains and those other teeth didn't?

I *think* I have come to the conclusion that there is another burn site altogether. Whether it was Kuss Rd., another quarry, and incinerator, somewhere else.

Hi missy, nice to see you too and hope you're doing well, Yeah i wasn't sure if the Zip's website was ok to post or not, but figure mods would delete if not.
I was actually trying to find any info. on the net regarding the forensics on the teeth etc. but didn't have much luck. But if that info. came from KZ i thought it would be accurate enough in her statements?
And i agree with what you are questioning there, and really does make one wonder about it all. It is a very convoluted case IMO.

 

[missy1974]

Dr. Donald Simley testified about the teeth. His testimony starts here: http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...Trial-Transcript-Day-13-2007Feb28.pdf#page=59

in the post conviction brief KZ filed, it does state the following:

30. To support the identification of Ms. Halbach as the cremains in Mr. Avery's burn pit, Mr.
Kratz relied upon the testimony of forensic dentist Dr. Donald Simley ("Dr. Simley"),
who could not positively identify the only tooth recovered as belonging to Ms. Halbach,
but testified that the identification "was as close to a positive match" as one could get,
given that there was only one tooth available to be identified.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...Motion-for-Post-Conviction-Relief.pdf#page=40

Out of all the tooth fragments, after gluing a few pieces together, that's what Simley used to identify it as TH's. So I guess that's what KZ was meaning when she said 29 teeth not found (although, there is 32 adult teeth? Maybe TH only had 30?)?