MaM a Year Later - Reconstruct the Crime

[Safeguard]

I block my number if I don't want the party I'm calling to have my personal cell number. If I was planning on murdering the person, I couldn't care less if they had my number. Not like their gonna be around to spam my cell, or give my number out...

 

[Limaes]

Ok wait.... so she told Brendan in person she was going to Scott's? So she must have gone over to the fire if Brendan was by the fire with Steven? Which would mean, she did know who was at the fire, because to tell Brendan in person she had to go there? I'm confused. She saw 2 people by the fire, couldn't say who they were. She told whoever was in the house she was going to Scotts. But she also told Blaine and Brendan she was going, either inside or outside the house? Bobby said he was sleeping at that time and he's such a sound sleeper that he wouldn't have heard her, he hears nothing, not even the phone ringing. So that only leaves Brendan and Blaine. Ok wait.... Blaine wasn't even home... he was trick or treating with a friend. Bryan was at his girlfriends, and Bobby was sleeping. Who the heck was in the house to tell?

Do you see where the problem with these statements are?

What I see is the white elephant in the room. i.e the two people standing by the fire that no one wants to admit who they are.

I have a question about these animal print handcuffs. Can you point me to where these were purchased? In Baldwins reports, she states "I informed her a receipt from the store indicating a pair of pink cuffs were purchased along with an animal print of some sort". This sentence means to me that 1 receipt said pink cuffs and an animal print of some sort. The animal print of some sort, IMO, means some sort of clothing or something. Barb tells her that she did purchase the pink cuffs and some lotion. Could the lotion have "animal" in the name and that's how it shows on the receipt? Possible. As far as I can tell, the State, or anyone else, ever said that SA's were animal print handcuffs and they did have the receipts and were able to track it down at the store as well (2 sets were purchased that day... 1 to SA, 1 to BJ) So lets go with your theory.... the cuffs were covered with some sort of animal print coating (I'm assuming that's what you mean?) and that coating is gone/missing. How did some unknown female DNA get on the cuffs then? If they knew that animal print cuffs were bought that day, why didn't that get brought into the trial? Instead they used as evidence. cuffs that had zero connection to TH because none of her DNA was found on them, instead of calling in someone with knowledge, like the store owner who they interviewed, that could say that animal print cuffs were bought and LE did not recover those. Doesn't make sense to me at all.

JMO

" BARBARA said she did
know hers were pink, however, did not know what type STEVEN bought. "

Sounds like they're talking about cuffs to me.

Depends whereabouts on the cuffs the DNA of the female was located. I doubt Teresa was holding them in her hands at any stage. Her DNA not being present means nothing.

 

[Limaes]

It's not a matter of 'hating' LE (they've done alright by me, personally). It's a matter of right and wrong. Police are not above the law. They are not angels - they are human beings with passions and prejudices just like you and me. The difference is that they wield a great deal of power, which is why it is important to hold them to strict standards.

We don't know if the bullet being tested was contaminated or not, but contamination of the control sample indicates that contamination is a very real possibility.

It's not a stretch for me to consider that a court might give the state forensics lab the benefit of the doubt.



A small area of the floor was cleaned at some point. None of us knows what was being cleaned up beyond a reasonable doubt.

But it is my opinion that shooting a person several times would be expected to create both blood spatter in the area where the shooting took place, and backspatter on the weapon if shot at close range. If the spatter on the RAV4 is from the attack, that is testimony to the fact that there would be droplets all over the killing scene.

And if Brendan was involved, police wouldn't need to tell him she was shot in the head.

We do know the bullet sample wasn't contaminated. It is court testimony.

If there was supposed to be back spatter or any other spatter, why have none of his attorneys ever hired their own expert to dispute the State's case, especially his trial attorneys?

 

[Limaes]

Exactly.

His sister was selling the car and it was her name and number that the order was placed under. It was still the Avery yard address and she would have recognized it. She had said she'd be there around 2 o'clock so him phoning her when she wasn't there at 2:30 isn't weird. Why he used *67 is unclear but we don't know his habits.

No she wasn't. She didn't book the appointment, she didn't request the same girl as last time, she didn't give her number or her address. Nor did she ask anyone else to do it for her. SA did all that.

Teresa did not know where she was going when she left the message, that is why she told them she couldn't come unless they returned her call.

 

[IDK]

Exactly.

His sister was selling the car and it was her name and number that the order was placed under. It was still the Avery yard address and she would have recognized it. She had said she'd be there around 2 o'clock so him phoning her when she wasn't there at 2:30 isn't weird. Why he used *67 is unclear but we don't know his habits.

ITA. I know this has been discussed at length in the past. I've tried the "Forum Search" function to try to find the threads/posts that discussed the *69 usage, but no luck so far. Will try a couple other search terms to see if I have any luck.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Thanks everyone for the replies. I sincerely do appreciate it.

LOL! Well you all can tell I have never used that function since I thought it was 69 instead of 67. LOL!

I am still confused about why he would use it though that day. Why would he have to hide his number from TH? That is the part I don't fully understand. She thought she was going to meet with his sister. Did he know if she saw it was him calling her she wouldn't answer the phone. Didn't someone in her office say TH told them he gave her the creeps? Why didn't he just be honest and tell them TH needed to meet him at the junkyard to take photos of his sister's vehicle? Why be secretive letting TH think she was going to be meeting with a female but in truth it really would be only him?

Cool, said the blocked calls means nothing and I respectfully disagree. If it meant nothing and was totally irrelevant the presiding Judge wouldn't have ever agreed for it to be entered as evidence during the trial. IMO, it is still a big piece of evidence and if he gains a retrial this will be entered again as evidence.

I do believe SA planned to murder TH. I also believe he is a raging psychopath starting at a early age. I think he felt 10 feet tall and bullet proof because he had been exonerated the first time. Psychopaths will go to whatever lengths necessary to get revenge/even when they believe they have been wronged. He felt society as a whole owed him a rape so he targeted a young woman he could lure to his own surroundings without ever getting out of his comfort zone to look for one. He set it up to look like she came there but that she had left the premises afterwards. I.e the call he made to TH after he already knew she was dead. I am not surprised he used the defense he was framed at his trial but his DT provided no evidence of planting. They very easily could have ask the Judge for permission to run their own tests on his blood found in her vehicle to see if any additives were in it.

It seems like to me the first test KZ would have done immediately is to test the blood of SA's found in TH vehicle to see if it has any EDTA in it. If it does have EDTA then that would exonerate him and if it doesn't have any additive it means he was the one who murdered TH. Has she had this test done and does she have to turnover the results if he gets another trial although if there is another trial I am sure the Prosecutor will also have the FBI run new test on the blood of his found in her vehicle.

If the blood is pure without any additives the other evidence entered just supports his guilt. There are always unanswered and unexplainable questions left hanging in every murder case. It will show no matter how he did it or planned it or set it up........he did it. To me this case really rises or falls on his blood being found in the murdered victim's vehicle.

Again, thank you everyone who replied about the calls where he used 67 to block his number from being seen. It still doesn't make any sense to me but I appreciate everyone's opinion on this subject.

 

[proudfootz]

We do know the bullet sample wasn't contaminated. It is court testimony.

Testimony from a lab technician who doesn't even know how the control sample was contaminated? That leaves me with very reasonable doubts.

If there was supposed to be back spatter or any other spatter, why have none of his attorneys ever hired their own expert to dispute the State's case, especially his trial attorneys?

Unlike the State, the defense doesn't have infinite resources.

The State admits it found no evidence of Teresa in either the house or garage - that speaks volumes in and of itself.

Other than a slug. Which, as has been pointed out in court and in countless forums, the alleged finding of TH DNA is controversial to say the least.

Culhane had to submit a deviation request to get this 'evidence' into the record.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5oy2pjeox...viation request for bullet fragments.PDF?dl=0

Culhane admits this is the only time in her whole career she had to make such a request!

http://www.buting.com/DNA-results-tainted.pdf

Not sure if 'ironic' is the proper term, but the defense was not allowed to observe the test due to supposed concern about contamination then Culhane contaminates it herself.

 

[Limaes]

Testimony from a lab technician who doesn't even know how the control sample was contaminated? That leaves me with very reasonable doubts.



Unlike the State, the defense doesn't have infinite resources.

The State admits it found no evidence of Teresa in either the house or garage - that speaks volumes in and of itself.

Other than a slug. Which, as has been pointed out in court and in countless forums, the alleged finding of TH DNA is controversial to say the least.

Culhane had to submit a deviation request to get this 'evidence' into the record.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5oy2pjeox...viation request for bullet fragments.PDF?dl=0

Culhane admits this is the only time in her whole career she had to make such a request!

http://www.buting.com/DNA-results-tainted.pdf

Not sure if 'ironic' is the proper term, but the defense was not allowed to observe the test due to supposed concern about contamination then Culhane contaminates it herself.

I think you may be misunderstanding how the test is conducted.

Do you have another source other than Buting? I don't believe a word he says.

The defense were in a position to hire their own experts. For some reason, they chose not to.

 

[proudfootz]

Thanks everyone for the replies. I sincerely do appreciate it.

LOL! Well you all can tell I have never used that function since I thought it was 69 instead of 67. LOL!

I am still confused about why he would use it though that day. Why would he have to hide his number from TH? That is the part I don't fully understand. She thought she was going to meet with his sister. Did he know if she saw it was him calling her she wouldn't answer the phone. Didn't someone in her office say TH told them he gave her the creeps? Why didn't he just be honest and tell them TH needed to meet him at the junkyard to take photos of his sister's vehicle? Why be secretive letting TH think she was going to be meeting with a female but in truth it really would be only him?

I don't think I have seen anything which suggests any of this was 'secretive'.

Steven calls Auto Trader. I assume he uses his own voice. Unless you are assuming he disguised his voice somehow? Talked in falsetto?

He has to use Barb's name and phone because she is the owner of record. It would do no good to try and pretend he owned the van if it was intended to be sold.

If he connects with her at any point, Teresa will probably recognize Steven's voice as they have done business before. A 'luring' theory that has Steven pretending to be a woman just doesn't work very well for me.

That much at least (using Barb's information to sell a vehicle owned by Barb) is most easily explained by assuming this is intended to be an honest transaction.

If the intent was to murder TH, there's no need to have a real transaction all lined up - any car would do. The salvage yard is full of them.

Cool, said the blocked calls means nothing and I respectfully disagree. If it meant nothing and was totally irrelevant the presiding Judge wouldn't have ever agreed for it to be entered as evidence during the trial. IMO, it is still a big piece of evidence and if he gains a retrial this will be entered again as evidence.

Obviously, the relevance of the *67 calls is a matter of dispute. The judge is simply allowing the two sides argue their cases and not simply throwing out one or the other.

I do believe SA planned to murder TH. I also believe he is a raging psychopath starting at a early age. I think he felt 10 feet tall and bullet proof because he had been exonerated the first time. Psychopaths will go to whatever lengths necessary to get revenge/even when they believe they have been wronged. He felt society as a whole owed him a rape so he targeted a young woman he could lure to his own surroundings without ever getting out of his comfort zone to look for one. He set it up to look like she came there but that she had left the premises afterwards. I.e the call he made to TH after he already knew she was dead.

We disagree. In my estimation Steven's behavior demonstrates his consciousness of innocence of any crime against Teresa Halbach.

I am not surprised he used the defense he was framed at his trial but his DT provided no evidence of planting. They very easily could have ask the Judge for permission to run their own tests on his blood found in her vehicle to see if any additives were in it.

The difficulty here is that there is no reliable test to exclude EDTA, as the defense explained during the trial.

It seems like to me the first test KZ would have done immediately is to test the blood of SA's found in TH vehicle to see if it has any EDTA in it. If it does have EDTA then that would exonerate him and if it doesn't have any additive it means he was the one who murdered TH. Has she had this test done and does she have to turnover the results if he gets another trial although if there is another trial I am sure the Prosecutor will also have the FBI run new test on the blood of his found in her vehicle.

If the blood is pure without any additives the other evidence entered just supports his guilt. There are always unanswered and unexplainable questions left hanging in every murder case. It will show no matter how he did it or planned it or set it up........he did it. To me this case really rises or falls on his blood being found in the murdered victim's vehicle.

That is possibly the strongest point in the prosecution's favor.

Again, thank you everyone who replied about the calls where he used 67 to block his number from being seen. It still doesn't make any sense to me but I appreciate everyone's opinion on this subject.

All of us working together might help sort this thing out!

 

[proudfootz]

I think you may be misunderstanding how the test is conducted.

Or perhaps you are misunderstanding.

I'm assuming the control samples are there for a reason, and not simply 'for fun'.

Do you have another source other than Buting? I don't believe a word he says.

That's your prerogative.

I find Buting's character much preferable to that of the Prosecutor in this case.

Let Sherry Culhane tell you herself:

18 Q. This is the only time in your entire career you

19 have ever filed a deviation of protocol so that

20 you could make a call and include somebody, isn't

21 it?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. This case is the only time, right?

24 A. Yes.


https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...80/Jury-Trial-Transcript-Day-11-2007Feb26.pdf

page 146

But then, you might not believe her, either.

Culhane's testimony has quite a bit of revealing information about why scientific protocols are important in forensics work, and her own performance.

The defense were in a position to hire their own experts. For some reason, they chose not to.

As I pointed out, the defense did not have infinite resources.

The cross examination of Sherry Culhane linked above shows that there is no evidence, other than this controversial bullet, that indicates there was any crime against Teresa committed in either Steven's home or garage.

Why waste time, effort, and money refuting something no one even tried to assert?

 

[proudfootz]

No she wasn't. She didn't book the appointment, she didn't request the same girl as last time, she didn't give her number or her address. Nor did she ask anyone else to do it for her. SA did all that.

Teresa did not know where she was going when she left the message, that is why she told them she couldn't come unless they returned her call.

More problems with the 'luring' hypothesis is that Steven called Auto Trader on Monday morning. There's no guarantee Teresa - or whatever photographer was available - wouldn't come in the morning (before Steven could set up his impromptu 'torture chamber'), or not make it that day at all.

Obviously, Barb couldn't handle the details since she would be away at work.

It's hard to fathom how Teresa could not have known where Avery Salvage was as she'd been there several times before and it is on Avery Road.

If Steven didn't give the location he was allegedly 'luring' her to, that's another flaw in this so-called plan.

ETA: Steven did give the address, and Auto Trader did give it to Teresa - so she knew exactly where she was going.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...nd-362-Auto-Trader-Appt-and-Phone-Records.pdf

 

[proudfootz]

On further reflection about this so-called 'luring' plan - how would Auto Trader know who the 'photographer who was here before' be if they didn't know where 'here' was?

Dawn Pliszka testified that she talked to Teresa on the phone that day and that Teresa knew it was the Avery brothers place she was going to.

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...449/Jury-Trial-Transcript-Day-2-2007Feb13.pdf

page 80

 

[Safeguard]

Thanks everyone for the replies. I sincerely do appreciate it.

LOL! Well you all can tell I have never used that function since I thought it was 69 instead of 67. LOL!

I am still confused about why he would use it though that day. Why would he have to hide his number from TH? That is the part I don't fully understand. She thought she was going to meet with his sister. Did he know if she saw it was him calling her she wouldn't answer the phone. Didn't someone in her office say TH told them he gave her the creeps? Why didn't he just be honest and tell them TH needed to meet him at the junkyard to take photos of his sister's vehicle? Why be secretive letting TH think she was going to be meeting with a female but in truth it really would be only him?

Cool, said the blocked calls means nothing and I respectfully disagree. If it meant nothing and was totally irrelevant the presiding Judge wouldn't have ever agreed for it to be entered as evidence during the trial. IMO, it is still a big piece of evidence and if he gains a retrial this will be entered again as evidence.

I do believe SA planned to murder TH. I also believe he is a raging psychopath starting at a early age. I think he felt 10 feet tall and bullet proof because he had been exonerated the first time. Psychopaths will go to whatever lengths necessary to get revenge/even when they believe they have been wronged. He felt society as a whole owed him a rape so he targeted a young woman he could lure to his own surroundings without ever getting out of his comfort zone to look for one. He set it up to look like she came there but that she had left the premises afterwards. I.e the call he made to TH after he already knew she was dead. I am not surprised he used the defense he was framed at his trial but his DT provided no evidence of planting. They very easily could have ask the Judge for permission to run their own tests on his blood found in her vehicle to see if any additives were in it.

It seems like to me the first test KZ would have done immediately is to test the blood of SA's found in TH vehicle to see if it has any EDTA in it. If it does have EDTA then that would exonerate him and if it doesn't have any additive it means he was the one who murdered TH. Has she had this test done and does she have to turnover the results if he gets another trial although if there is another trial I am sure the Prosecutor will also have the FBI run new test on the blood of his found in her vehicle.

If the blood is pure without any additives the other evidence entered just supports his guilt. There are always unanswered and unexplainable questions left hanging in every murder case. It will show no matter how he did it or planned it or set it up........he did it. To me this case really rises or falls on his blood being found in the murdered victim's vehicle.

Again, thank you everyone who replied about the calls where he used 67 to block his number from being seen. It still doesn't make any sense to me but I appreciate everyone's opinion on this subject.

I see no evidence over the course of SA's life that points to "he's a raging psycho", ( I am guessing the cat is at play again). I've never see any reports of experts in the field make that claim. I'm pretty confident SA has had extensive psychological testing...

For the record I don't like SA. Even a little bit. I find him repulsive personally.

I watched a video interview his twin Sons made, they seem like decent men...they served in Iraq the same time my son did. I respect that... they spoke of their relief, as young children, when they no longer had to visit SA in jail because he hit them when they were restless and wouldn't settle down. I find that appalling and extremely hard to get past when I am wanting justice for this dude!

So that's kinda my bias against SA, (AMONG OTHERS LOL!). However this isn't really JUST about SA.

The destruction of lives in this case goes far beyond SA. and do we really just want to accept the many instances of judicial misconduct with a wink and a nod, and and an, "oh well that's what he gets he wasn't really a very nice man anyway"?

While I dont agree with you on his guilt, ( To do so, I would need to ignore the massive amount of "oopsies" on the part of LE. and what would be the need for all the bs. like kk press conference ect...?).

I do very much aprieciate your thoughtful questions, and the respectful manner in which you share here. Thank you!

In that same spirit can I ask you a question?

What do think is the reason that Kathleen Zellner would choose to represent a murderous raging psychopath? She is certainly educated enough, to know one when she sees one, and if she is aware of his guilt and is choosing to pick up this case anyway, what would be her motive?

KZ doesn't strike me as the kind of person who would represent a murderer for some kind of personal gain.

I highly doubt she's just fallen under the spell of SA... She seems to know her buiness.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I don't think I have seen anything which suggests any of this was 'secretive'.

Steven calls Auto Trader. I assume he uses his own voice. Unless you are assuming he disguised his voice somehow? Talked in falsetto?

He has to use Barb's name and phone because she is the owner of record. It would do no good to try and pretend he owned the van if it was intended to be sold.

If he connects with her at any point, Teresa will probably recognize Steven's voice as they have done business before. A 'luring' theory that has Steven pretending to be a woman just doesn't work very well for me.

That much at least (using Barb's information to sell a vehicle owned by Barb) is most easily explained by assuming this is intended to be an honest transaction.

If the intent was to murder TH, there's no need to have a real transaction all lined up - any car would do. The salvage yard is full of them.



Obviously, the relevance of the *67 calls is a matter of dispute. The judge is simply allowing the two sides argue their cases and not simply throwing out one or the other.



We disagree. In my estimation Steven's behavior demonstrates his consciousness of innocence of any crime against Teresa Halbach.



The difficulty here is that there is no reliable test to exclude EDTA, as the defense explained during the trial.



That is possibly the strongest point in the prosecution's favor.



All of us working together might help sort this thing out!

Thank you for replying. I guess you are right and we will have to agree to disagree. To me anytime someone blocks their number there is a purposeful intent in doing so and this is the woman who's remains were found on his property. Blocking numbers is secretive. The Judge allows only evidence to be entered when he/she thinks it is relevant evidence to the particular case. They don't just let everything come in from either side. Each side has to show a good faith basis how it is relevant and that is why Judges either rule it in as allowable or doesn't due to being irrelevant. Of course they rule on other evidence and may find it too prejudicial to come in against the defendant. Do you know if this particular Judge did rule some of the evidence too prejudicial to come in? In many cases I find the evidence that wasn't allowed in to be the most interesting sometimes if it is divulged after the trial is over with.

Let me ask you this please. On the phone calls he doesn't block his number when calling AT, right? Wouldn't they relay to her she would be meeting with the sister when she got there? Did he ever call TH that day and speak with her without blocking his number other than the two he did block? Did he also block the last call he made? If not, why do you think he didn't block his number then?

She still thought she was going to meet his sister. I don't agree he had to give his sister's name and address to get TH to come out and take photos. TH wasn't buying the vehicle and only taking photos of it. TH wouldn't care who the vehicle belonged to legally. She would know only the legal owner would be able to sell the van anyway. BTW, since the vehicle supposedly to be sold belonged to his sister why wasn't she there to meet TH? Didn't she live in the same compound? Did she know before the murder that SA had called TH to take photos of a van that belonged to her and not him? Did she sell her van shortly after TH was murdered? He had dealt with this company before so he easily could have told them he needed them to come out to meet him and take photos of a van his sister was selling. When she took photos of the sister's van did it have a for sale sign in the window? My husband has used AT about 6 years ago and I was the one who called and had them come take photos since he was at work during the day and the truck was in his name only. They never asked me to prove the truck was in my name or even his. They have no part in the actual sell by the legal owner.

I find it hard to believe with all of the advance forensic testing now there isn't a reliable test to find or exclude EDTA. The trial was in 2005 or 2006 wasn't it? If so, forensic testing has advanced by leaps and bounds since then. Wasn't this test being done in the early 90s over 20 years ago? Has the FBI said they cant test for EDTA? I seem to remember something about it being in the OJ case concerning the blood found on the back gate at Nicole's. They are able to extract multiple DNA profiles from the same sample so finding the additive EDTA shouldn't be hard at all since it is not a part of the blood makeup so anything foreign should be easy to find when separated from the blood. Has KZ even tried to find experts who do this type of testing? I thought I read she is doing different testing altogether on other items which puzzles me since there was so much ado about the blood belonging to SA being planted from the old blood vial. I think I also remember they made a huge ado about the puncture in the top of the vial. However; the nurse who actually drew his blood back in the 80s said she is the one who made the puncture in the top and it was standard procedure. She didn't testify back in his murder trial but I am sure she will if there is a retrial.

ETA: Oh I meant to ask you this too. Why do you think his behavior shows he is innocent? Is it because he went about his day/s as if nothing had happened? TIA

imo

 

[Safeguard]

Just throwing this out there. Here is what is the problem related to "proper court proceedings" and some good examples of why they just didn't happen in this case.
bbm

Steve Moore; (FBI terrorist hunter, helicopter pilot, certified sniper),


"The reason Kratz would talk about the details of Teresa begging for her life before being raped, but not answer a question on DNA is because he knew he had no DNA evidence. Period. And as attorney Dean Strang so correctly noted, poisoning the jury pool with Dassey’s alleged confession, and then not calling him to testify was a brilliant move because it got the statement “in,” but made it impossible to cross-examine Dassey on the ‘confession. Innuendo and false testimony is not how jury trials are supposed to work. At least not since the late 1600’s in Salem, Massachusetts."

RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 101

"So where is the murder scene? When reporters asked Ken Kratz why he had not brought up the murder scene in trial, I was absolutely dumbstruck at his answer. He said that he was going to explain all that "...in closing arguments." Whiskey tango foxtrot? Closing arguments do not introduce new evidence, and are not evidence in and of themselves. A closing argument can only refer to evidence that has already been placed into the trial. What Kratz was admitting was that he had not a single shred of evidence to prove where the murder was carried out. But apparently that wasn't going to keep him from telling the jury where it was, without evidence of any kind. To put forward a theory of how the crime could have happened, without providing evidence for the conclusion(s) is appalling. If the judge allowed that, well... I have no words...

Where does this leave us? Kratz doesn't know where the murder occurred, he probably suspects that using Brendan Dassey as a prosecution witness would be disastrous, and continues to try to make a criminal case against a defendant without the use of reliable or convincing evidence--and has no explanation for why the evidence was not found. But I can tell you one thing the evidence proves to me; regardless of who killed Teresa Halbach (even if it turns out it was Steven Avery), she was not killed in Avery's garage or trailer.

"The fact that Judge Willis wouldn't even give a jury instruction regarding Dassey’s ‘confession’ in light of the March 2nd presser, makes me wonder how anybody could get a fair trial in those counties as long as Kratz is prosecuting and Willis is on the bench.""

http://gmancasefile.com/moore-to-th...erer-an-fbi-agents-take-episode-6-part-2-of-3

 

[Madeleine74]

On the phone calls he doesn't block his number when calling AT, right? Wouldn't they relay to her she would be meeting with the sister when she got there? Did he ever call TH that day and speak with her without blocking his number other than the two he did block? Did he also block the last call he made? If not, why do you think he didn't block his number then?

She still thought she was going to meet his sister. I don't agree he had to give his sister's name and address to get TH to come out and take photos. TH wasn't buying the vehicle and only taking photos of it. TH wouldn't care who the vehicle belonged to legally. She would know only the legal owner would be able to sell the van anyway. BTW, since the vehicle supposedly to be sold belonged to his sister why wasn't she there to meet TH? Didn't she live in the same compound? Did she know before the murder that SA had called TH to take photos of a van that belonged to her and not him? Did she sell her van shortly after TH was murdered?

Hi OBE!

All good questions.

SA made 4 phone calls that day in reference to the van and/or TH.

Call #1: SA to Auto Trader. He did not hide the phone number. He gave the name "B Janda" and gave the phone number for B Janda home. (Barb, in at least one of her interviews to LE, said she did not want to sell her van, she wanted it for one of the boys.) Barb was at work all day so she wouldn't be able to meet with anyone coming to the salvage yard.

Call #2: sometime around 2:30pm-ish SA cell to TH cell (number blocked with *67)

Call #3: sometime around 2:40pm-ish SA cell to TH cell (number blocked with *67)

Call #4: sometime around 4:35pm-ish SA cell to TH cell (number not blocked). This call went straight to voicemail, and TH's cell phone was no longer pinging to any tower.

SA made approximately 16 calls that day. 2 calls were blocked by #67 -- the 2 directly to TH while she is known to be alive. All other calls SA made using his cell were not blocked that day.

 

[missy1974]

You have a lot of questions here LOL I am going to try to respond to some of them

Thank you for replying. I guess you are right and we will have to agree to disagree. To me anytime someone blocks their number there is a purposeful intent in doing so and this is the woman who's remains were found on his property. Blocking numbers is secretive.

His purposeful intent was to protect his privacy. Which I can imagine may have been important to him in light of being exonerated 2 years previous and recently filing a law suit against the county. He was still in the news, laws in his name were being passed, lawsuit being filed. It makes sense to me that he wouldn't block his number when calling businesses or lawyers or government agencies, most reputable businesses, like AT, wouldn't share that phone number, would they?

Let me ask you this please. On the phone calls he doesn't block his number when calling AT, right? Wouldn't they relay to her she would be meeting with the sister when she got there? Did he ever call TH that day and speak with her without blocking his number other than the two he did block? Did he also block the last call he made? If not, why do you think he didn't block his number then?

AT is a business, and he knew exactly who he was calling, no need to block it IMO. I don't think he ever spoke with her when he called because the calls weren't long enough. 2 of his calls to her registered as duration of Zero seconds, one registered as 7.2 seconds. The last call was not blocked, but IMO, it's possible that the 3rd call he was confident that it was the 'photographers' phone number and was not concerned for his privacy. It's also JMO, but like I have posted previously, he had her number written down, in 2 spots actually, but there was no identifying info with it.... no "photographer", no "AutoTrader", nothing, just a number, and if he was unsure if it was her #, blocking his number to call a random number to protect his privacy is not that out of the ordinary, again IMO.

As for what was and was not said and relayed to/from AutoTrader, I suggest you read the police report and then the testimony of Dawn Pliszka. Her "story" changes too, from she knew the Janda's were basically the Avery's (the day TH was reported missing she was interviewed), too not having a clue who Janda's were (at trial).
Here is a direct link to the report. Here is a direct link to her testimony.

She still thought she was going to meet his sister. I don't agree he had to give his sister's name and address to get TH to come out and take photos. TH wasn't buying the vehicle and only taking photos of it. TH wouldn't care who the vehicle belonged to legally. She would know only the legal owner would be able to sell the van anyway. BTW, since the vehicle supposedly to be sold belonged to his sister why wasn't she there to meet TH? Didn't she live in the same compound? Did she know before the murder that SA had called TH to take photos of a van that belonged to her and not him? Did she sell her van shortly after TH was murdered? He had dealt with this company before so he easily could have told them he needed them to come out to meet him and take photos of a van his sister was selling. When she took photos of the sister's van did it have a for sale sign in the window? My husband has used AT about 6 years ago and I was the one who called and had them come take photos since he was at work during the day and the truck was in his name only. They never asked me to prove the truck was in my name or even his. They have no part in the actual sell by the legal owner.

Barb was working that day. She was not able to be there. Through some of the statements we have available, Barb wanted the van for the boys and thought it was a waste of money to put it into AutoTrader, Steve thought it was a piece of junk and thought he could sell it and get something better for the boys to drive (paraphrased and is just the gist of it from the various statements we have from Barb, Steve and the Dassey boys) Barb, like your husband was at work, so Steve called AutoTrader for her, it was her van, so why not put it in her name? Did you put the ad in your name or your husbands? I agree it probably doesn't matter (unless there are maybe tax laws about buying/selling vehicles and there is a limit to them, before it becomes a business?) AFAIK the van was not sold, it was still there on the 4th, the ad would not have run in AutoTrader, no for sale sign that I'm aware of, but then, not sure why it would have one when it was sitting near their homes and not in the Salvage Yard or near the entrance to the salvage yard. I am not sure if they took it as evidence or not?

She had an earlier appointment that day too where the person calling was not the person she met with, it seems to me that it is probably pretty common with a job like TH's where she is going out on business days and most people work mon-friday during the day. Actually she had more than 1 if we include the Zipperers, she saw and spoke to Mrs. Z but it wasn't Mrs. Z that made the appointment. If we ask Mr. Z.... he didn't either :scared: but that's a different story LOL

I find it hard to believe with all of the advance forensic testing now there isn't a reliable test to find or exclude EDTA. The trial was in 2005 or 2006 wasn't it? If so, forensic testing has advanced by leaps and bounds since then. Wasn't this test being done in the early 90s over 20 years ago? Has the FBI said they cant test for EDTA? I seem to remember something about it being in the OJ case concerning the blood found on the back gate at Nicole's. They are able to extract multiple DNA profiles from the same sample so finding the additive EDTA shouldn't be hard at all since it is not a part of the blood makeup so anything foreign should be easy to find when separated from the blood. Has KZ even tried to find experts who do this type of testing? I thought I read she is doing different testing altogether on other items which puzzles me since there was so much ado about the blood belonging to SA being planted from the old blood vial. I think I also remember they made a huge ado about the puncture in the top of the vial. However; the nurse who actually drew his blood back in the 80s said she is the one who made the puncture in the top and it was standard procedure. She didn't testify back in his murder trial but I am sure she will if there is a retrial.

I agree that it's hard to believe that there is no reliable test. But guess what? I can't seem to find one LOL The FBI did do the testing for the OJ case, but then, there was issues with that test, and when it was peer reviewed after (or was it during the trial?) they found some errors IIRC. In 2006, there was one other lab that could have possibly tested it, but I think there was some issues with that lab as well, and the credibility of the Dr. and the test. I think proudfootz brought up a valid point too.... the defense did not have unlimited resources like the State did. The defense couldn't go to the FBI like the State did and ask them to do the testing.

I found this a few months ago, and it's a great start to understanding it from a legal standpoint. He also talks about the other lab that may have been able to test the blood, but how the test was inadmissable in another case. AFAIK, it was only used 2 times, the OJ case, and the SA case.
Part 1 http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/ev...verymaking-a-murderercase-a-lot-has-been.html
Part 2 http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/ev...dta-evidence-used-in-the-steven-averymak.html
Part 3 http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/ev...a-murderercase-prior-posts-here-and-here.html



[/QUOTE]

 

[missy1974]

On further reflection about this so-called 'luring' plan - how would Auto Trader know who the 'photographer who was here before' be if they didn't know where 'here' was?

Dawn Pliszka testified that she talked to Teresa on the phone that day and that Teresa knew it was the Avery brothers place she was going to.

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...449/Jury-Trial-Transcript-Day-2-2007Feb13.pdf

page 80

sorry, working backwards today LOL I posted this in my last post, but will post it here too.

Dawn herself acknowledged knowing the Janda's were basically the Avery's in her Nov 3rd interview. This really was not a big secret IMO and the AVERY RD. address is the giveaway, isn't it?

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CASO-Investigative-Report.pdf#page=20

 

[proudfootz]

Thank you for replying. I guess you are right and we will have to agree to disagree.

Wouldn't it be a real drag if we were all the same?

To me anytime someone blocks their number there is a purposeful intent in doing so and this is the woman who's remains were found on his property. Blocking numbers is secretive.

But if Steven talks to Teresa when he calls, or leaves a message, it will be pretty obvious that the caller is not a woman and she'd probably recognize Steven's voice as they've already done business.

I'm not sure why exactly he blocked his personal phone on those calls. It would be interesting if police wanted to suggest this was something he only did to Teresa for all his phone records to be shown so we can see for ourselves this was something unusual for him. Do you suppose there is a reason they did not do this?

The Judge allows only evidence to be entered when he/she thinks it is relevant evidence to the particular case. They don't just let everything come in from either side. Each side has to show a good faith basis how it is relevant and that is why Judges either rule it in as allowable or doesn't due to being irrelevant. Of course they rule on other evidence and may find it too prejudicial to come in against the defendant. Do you know if this particular Judge did rule some of the evidence too prejudicial to come in? In many cases I find the evidence that wasn't allowed in to be the most interesting sometimes if it is divulged after the trial is over with.

I'm not so familiar with the case that I can comment on all the rulings of the judge hearing this case. I know that in some quarters his rulings caused controversy. But for me the judge allowing the prosecution to argue the *67 calls were significant and the defense arguing they weren't is simply getting on with the case and isn't meaningful.

I agree that sometimes stuff the jury isn't allowed to hear can be interesting. In this case I feel I have a certain amount of advantage over them since I can look at the mutually contradictory 'theories of the crime' put forward by the prosecution. That suggests to me that even the prosecution had doubts about their case.

Let me ask you this please. On the phone calls he doesn't block his number when calling AT, right?

As far as I know he didn't block Barb Janda's number when he called in the morning. I haven't seen any phone records produced for any of the other half dozen occasions when he's done business through Auto Trader.

Wouldn't they relay to her she would be meeting with the sister when she got there?

The woman who took the call, Dawn Pliszka, knew that it was a man calling, did not write down the name as 'Barb' but simply put the initial letter. Steven did not tell Auto Trader that Barb would be meeting the photographer, and Dawn did not tell Teresa that a woman would meet her at Avery's.

It doesn't look like there is any evidence indicating that there was any effort to fool anyone at Auto Trader or to fool Teresa. She knew exactly where she was going, according to Dawn who talked to her that afternoon.

Did he ever call TH that day and speak with her without blocking his number other than the two he did block? Did he also block the last call he made? If not, why do you think he didn't block his number then?

I don't know for a fact why he blocked his number on the previous two calls.

Perhaps he was frustrated she didn't answer his calls when the *67 was being used (I used to get harassing phone calls and would not accept calls from blocked numbers). Then he called without blocking in hopes that she'd pick up knowing it was him, a regular paying customer.

She still thought she was going to meet his sister. I don't agree he had to give his sister's name and address to get TH to come out and take photos. TH wasn't buying the vehicle and only taking photos of it. TH wouldn't care who the vehicle belonged to legally. She would know only the legal owner would be able to sell the van anyway. BTW, since the vehicle supposedly to be sold belonged to his sister why wasn't she there to meet TH? Didn't she live in the same compound? Did she know before the murder that SA had called TH to take photos of a van that belonged to her and not him? Did she sell her van shortly after TH was murdered? He had dealt with this company before so he easily could have told them he needed them to come out to meet him and take photos of a van his sister was selling. When she took photos of the sister's van did it have a for sale sign in the window? My husband has used AT about 6 years ago and I was the one who called and had them come take photos since he was at work during the day and the truck was in his name only. They never asked me to prove the truck was in my name or even his. They have no part in the actual sell by the legal owner.

No one told Teresa she was going to meet a woman, so she had no reason to expect that.

Barb Janda wasn't at home Monday, she was at work. So of course she couldn't be there to meet Teresa.

AFAIK Barb has never claimed to have forbidden Steven to sell the van, nor has she ever expressed surprise that he called Auto Trader. That they had a disagreement over whether it was worth the fee to have it listed indicates he was completely above board with her, just as he was with Auto Trader.

I find it hard to believe with all of the advance forensic testing now there isn't a reliable test to find or exclude EDTA.

At the time of the trial there was no universally recognized and reliable test for EDTA. The problem is if the chemical has broken down to the point where it is below the threshold necessary to be detected. Apparently the FBI quickly came up with a test they thought might work for this particular case.

But if the blood was planted (a big if!) it is not necessary to have EDTA in the blood used at all.

The trial was in 2005 or 2006 wasn't it? If so, forensic testing has advanced by leaps and bounds since then. Wasn't this test being done in the early 90s over 20 years ago? Has the FBI said they cant test for EDTA? I seem to remember something about it being in the OJ case concerning the blood found on the back gate at Nicole's. They are able to extract multiple DNA profiles from the same sample so finding the additive EDTA shouldn't be hard at all since it is not a part of the blood makeup so anything foreign should be easy to find when separated from the blood. Has KZ even tried to find experts who do this type of testing? I thought I read she is doing different testing altogether on other items which puzzles me since there was so much ado about the blood belonging to SA being planted from the old blood vial. I think I also remember they made a huge ado about the puncture in the top of the vial. However; the nurse who actually drew his blood back in the 80s said she is the one who made the puncture in the top and it was standard procedure. She didn't testify back in his murder trial but I am sure she will if there is a retrial.

I think all of this will come out when the defense presents its case. Yes, forensic science has come a long way even in a couple of decades. Like most people who take an interest in this case, I can only await developments.

ETA: Oh I meant to ask you this too. Why do you think his behavior shows he is innocent? Is it because he went about his day/s as if nothing had happened? TIA

imo

Beginning at the beginning:

Steven contacted a photographer through Auto Trader, leaving a trail that points straight at him if anything bad happens to her. But he could have called her directly, as court testimony shows he did previously, without any record of her coming to the salvage yard.

Steven would not need a real car being sold to get Teresa to come and take photos, he could have picked any of hundreds there on the lot. Announcing to everyone he knows that a photographer from Auto Trader is coming is something an innocent person would do.

When Teresa turns up missing Steven is very cooperative with police, answering all of their questions and allowing them to search anyplace they like - just like an innocent person with nothing to fear.

When police coerced Brendan into a series of bizarre incriminating statements Steven did not blame Brendan.

Steven continues to maintain his innocence, just as he did in the previous wrongful conviction when 'confessing' would have gotten him out of jail.

 

[Limaes]

More problems with the 'luring' hypothesis is that Steven called Auto Trader on Monday morning. There's no guarantee Teresa - or whatever photographer was available - wouldn't come in the morning (before Steven could set up his impromptu 'torture chamber'), or not make it that day at all.

Obviously, Barb couldn't handle the details since she would be away at work.

It's hard to fathom how Teresa could not have known where Avery Salvage was as she'd been there several times before and it is on Avery Road.

If Steven didn't give the location he was allegedly 'luring' her to, that's another flaw in this so-called plan.

ETA: Steven did give the address, and Auto Trader did give it to Teresa - so she knew exactly where she was going.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...nd-362-Auto-Trader-Appt-and-Phone-Records.pdf

SA hid his identity from TH. This is undisputable. SA supporters have come up with an excuse that once again, casts SA as the poor victim and Teresa as the bad one who would abuse the privilege, that is only bestowed upon a chosen few, even though she most likely already had his number.

At the time that Teresa left the message around 11.30am, she did not know where she was going. Perhaps you didn't know this because MaM cut that part of the vm out. The full recording can easily be found through google if you're interested in listening to it in its entirety.