MaM a Year Later - Reconstruct the Crime

[Safeguard]

So no thoughts about why KZ is representing, really curious... No one seems to acknowledge that many intelligent professionals have a problem with the way this all went down.

Hope you have a marvelous time with your family! (I need a nap just thinking about cooking for 38 people whew!).

 

[Safeguard]

So no thoughts about why KZ is representing, really curious... No one seems to acknowledge that many intelligent professionals have a problem with the way this all went down.

Hope you have a marvelous time with your family! (I need a nap just thinking about cooking for 38 people whew!).

 

[proudfootz]

Happy Christmas and a Merry New Year!

 

[Deleted member 39678]

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.

For some reason SA blocked his number when calling TH two times and later on he felt that blocking his number was not necessary.

That's very very suspicious to me. I haven't read a good reason why he blocked his number other than he didn't want TH to see who was calling and not pickup the call. Later in the day that wasn't a problem for SA anymore. No more number blocking.

That's some compelling evidence of guilt in my opinion.

 

[Limaes]

So to those who believe using *67 indicates that SA was "luring" TH to the salvage yard, please explain this. If Theresa had answered the call, how would Steven have continued his "luring" behavior? Do you feel he would have disguised his voice? Pretended to be someone else? Or as Missy theorized (which I think is quite possible), would he have just confirmed whose number he was calling?

How would he have conducted the call? I'm interested in what you have to say. IMO, it would have been something completely innocent such as "Hello, is this Ms. Halbach? Steve Avery here, just confirming your appointment at the salvage yard this afternoon."

I don't think the hiding his number alone is an indication of luring her. Not giving his own name for a car the owner doesn't want to sell and asking for the same girl is imo.

 

[Limaes]

For some reason SA blocked his number when calling TH two times and later on he felt that blocking his number was not necessary.

That's very very suspicious to me. I haven't read a good reason why he blocked his number other than he didn't want TH to see who was calling and not pickup the call. Later in the day that wasn't a problem for SA anymore. No more number blocking.

That's some compelling evidence of guilt in my opinion.

And telling CA she didn't show up. 🤔

 

[LifeCitizen]

Can we believe CA? He was a creep in his own right.

 

[Madeleine74]

For some reason SA blocked his number when calling TH two times and later on he felt that blocking his number was not necessary.

That's very very suspicious to me. I haven't read a good reason why he blocked his number other than he didn't want TH to see who was calling and not pickup the call. Later in the day that wasn't a problem for SA anymore. No more number blocking.

That's some compelling evidence of guilt in my opinion.

Dialing *67 is done when the caller doesn't want the receiver to know who's calling or doesn't want the receiver to know what number is being used to call from. It's done to hide or obscure that information. As we all know, it's a control tactic.

TH came out to the salvage yard many times before -- upwards of 15 times by some estimates. She was apparently professional or at least valued enough that SA wanted "the same girl as last time" (which just so happened to be the same girl who had been out many times before to photograph vehicles.)

It's curious why SA would feel compelled to hide his calling information from TH two times that day, in the 20 to 30 minutes before she finally showed up. She was the only person he did so in a day in which he made approximately 16 calls.

As far as we know, TH never bothered SA, did not give out his phone number, and took her photos and left. So the need for SA to hide his number from TH is curious. And then the last call he ever made to TH, the one call that proved TH's phone was not able to ping to any tower, he did not feel a need to hide his number. And on top of that he never again attempted to call TH for the reason some have assumed--to have her come back and take a hustle shot. He didn't call her ever again, he didn't call AutoTrader to try and schedule an appointment for the following Monday and supposedly he knew Mondays were TH's next scheduled availability for his area.

I'm sure that sequence of calls was noticed and made an impression on the jury. It's a piece of circumstantial evidence that most people would consider.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I can understand why some people feel the need to know the cause of death of an individual before they can say that a murder took place. For me if the manner of death is determined to be a homicide and the state produces evidence that supports that claim then I don't have to know the cause of death to believe a defendant is guilty.

I have a harder time trying to understand the need for "where" and "when" being a vital part of a finding of guilt. Does the "where" have to be the exact spot where the victim died? Or within a certain area? A mater of feet or yards? Within a mile? Two miles? I'm not sure what the requirement of "where" is in this case.

The same goes for "when". Knowing the exact second seems superfluous. What about to the minute? Hour? Day?

Does the state have to prove the exact cause of death, the exact place of death and the exact time of death in order to get a conviction? I don't think so.

The defense on the other hand can stop the state even before a trial if it can show the defendant couldn't possible be the killer because they were in a different place at the time of the murder.

That's called an alibi. The defense in the SA case doesn't have an alibi defense as far as I know. JMO

 

[Madeleine74]

I can understand why some people feel the need to know the cause of death of an individual before they can say that a murder took place. For me if the manner of death is determined to be a homicide and the state produces evidence that supports that claim then I don't have to know the cause of death to believe a defendant is guilty.

I have a harder time trying to understand the need for "where" and "when" being a vital part of a finding of guilt. Does the "where" have to be the exact spot where the victim died? Or within a certain area? A mater of feet or yards? Within a mile? Two miles? I'm not sure what the requirement of "where" is in this case.

The same goes for "when". Knowing the exact second seems superfluous. What about to the minute? Hour? Day?

Does the state have to prove the exact cause of death, the exact place of death and the exact time of death in order to get a conviction? I don't think so.

The defense on the other hand can stop the state even before a trial if it can show the defendant couldn't possible be the killer because they were in a different place at the time of the murder.

That's called an alibi. The defense in the SA case doesn't have an alibi defense as far as I know. JMO

I'm thinking of cases where COD and place of death and time of death was not known and in the 2 cases off the top of my head, both perps were convicted and sentenced to the DP:

- Laci Peterson
- Danielle VanDam

When a link can be made between perp and victim and those links have forensic and circumstantial evidence, a conviction can be obtained and it's a valid conviction. In some cases there's no body found and a conviction can still be reached by a jury. In other cases a body is found but is too decomposed to determine COD.

It's certainly best if exacts are known: the exact place the victim died, the exact time the victim died, the exact reason the victim was murdered. But exacts are often not known and that's just the way it is. The state's burden does not require proving motive at all, or a level of exactness of time and place some think is mandatory. There are always some unknowns in murder cases unless the state has a confession by the perp, an eyewitness to the crime or a video of the crime as it's being committed.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Dialing *67 is done when the caller doesn't want the receiver to know who's calling or doesn't want the receiver to know what number is being used to call from. It's done to hide or obscure that information. As we all know, it's a control tactic.

TH came out to the salvage yard many times before -- upwards of 15 times by some estimates. She was apparently professional or at least valued enough that SA wanted "the same girl as last time" (which just so happened to be the same girl who had been out many times before to photograph vehicles.)

It's curious why SA would feel compelled to hide his calling information from TH two times that day, in the 20 to 30 minutes before she finally showed up. She was the only person he did so in a day in which he made approximately 16 calls.

As far as we know, TH never bothered SA, did not give out his phone number, and took her photos and left. So the need for SA to hide his number from TH is curious. And then the last call he ever made to TH, the one call that proved TH's phone was not able to ping to any tower, he did not feel a need to hide his number. And on top of that he never again attempted to call TH for the reason some have assumed--to have her come back and take a hustle shot. He didn't call her ever again, he didn't call AutoTrader to try and schedule an appointment for the following Monday and supposedly he knew Mondays were TH's next scheduled availability for his area.

I'm sure that sequence of calls was noticed and made an impression on the jury. It's a piece of circumstantial evidence that most people would consider.

SA actions with the phone calls point in one direction and it's the one the jury took in finding him guilty.

Up thread a post mentioned that it would have been nice if we knew more about SA's previous use of *67 and that both the defense and the state have left use guessing whether he used that feature a lot or only on the day of TH's murder.

I would assume that the defense had access to SA phone records and if there was a pattern showing innocent usage of *67 they would have used it at trial to debunk the states theory. Since they didn't produce that kind of evidence I have a good feeling it doesn't exist.

I'm not sure how this lack of information is the states fault. JMO

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I'm thinking of cases where COD and place of death and time of death was not known and in the 2 cases off the top of my head, both perps were convicted and sentenced to the DP:

- Laci Peterson
- Danielle VanDam

When a link can be made between perp and victim and those links have forensic and circumstantial evidence, a conviction can be obtained and it's a valid conviction. In some cases there's no body found and a conviction can still be reached by a jury. In other cases a body is found but is too decomposed to determine COD.

It's certainly best if exacts are known: the exact place the victim died, the exact time the victim died, the exact reason the victim was murdered. But exacts are often not known and that's just the way it is. The state's burden does not require proving motive at all, or a level of exactness of time and place some think is mandatory. There are always some unknowns in murder cases unless the state has a confession by the perp, an eyewitness to the crime or a video of the crime as it's being committed.

I think some believe that "unknowns" in a case is the same as "reasonable doubt." We know that's just not true.

There was a "no body" murder case in my area several years ago. Christie Wilson. The evidence used to convict her killer was video of them leaving a casino together, a very small amount of her blood and hair in his trunk and scratch's on the defendants face. No when, where or how. JMO

http://www.auburnjournal.com/article/10/04/14/nine-years-later-auburn-killer-serving-his-time

 

[Madeleine74]

SA actions with the phone calls point in one direction and it's the one the jury took in finding him guilty.

Up thread a post mentioned that it would have been nice if we knew more about SA's previous use of *67 and that both the defense and the state have left use guessing whether he used that feature a lot or only on the day of TH's murder.

I would assume that the defense had access to SA phone records and if there was a pattern showing innocent usage of *67 they would have used it at trial to debunk the states theory. Since they didn't produce that kind of evidence I have a good feeling it doesn't exist.

I'm not sure how this lack of information is the states fault. JMO

Good points.

The state is not required at trial to try and prove a defendant's innocence.

SA's two highly competent attorneys, through discovery, received all the various records, tests, and reports that the state got. So if a call log for SA exists that shows some period of time beyond that one day then the defense had it as part of discovery. They certainly could obtain their own copy of SA's phone records if they didn't have all the days they wanted, and they could have introduced that log as part of their own case in chief.

Cell companies are required to maintain call records for some number of years, it varies but several years is probably a good average, so records were available at the time of SA's trial and for some time after.

 

[Madeleine74]

I think some believe that "unknowns" in a case is the same as "reasonable doubt." We know that's just not true.

There was a "no body" murder case in my area several years ago. Christie Wilson. The evidence used to convict her killer was video of them leaving a casino together, a very small amount of her blood and hair in his trunk and scratch's on the defendants face. No when, where or how. JMO

http://www.auburnjournal.com/article/10/04/14/nine-years-later-auburn-killer-serving-his-time

The key word is "reasonable." Pattern jury instructions go into detail on this very issue. The state is never held to a standard of "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" or "beyond a shadow of a doubt." The wording of the law and the wording and instructions a jury is given are key documents for them to follow. During voir dire, a part of selecting a juror is determining if a juror can and will follow the instructions given to them by the judge. If a potential juror demonstrates they can't or won't follow the law or the instructions they will be dismissed.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Good points.

The state is not required at trial to try and prove a defendant's innocence.

SA's two highly competent attorneys, through discovery, received all the various records, tests, and reports that the state got. So if a call log for SA exists that shows some period of time beyond that one day then the defense had it as part of discovery. They certainly could obtain their own copy of SA's phone records if they didn't have all the days they wanted, and they could have introduced that log as part of their own case in chief.

Cell companies are required to maintain call records for some number of years, it varies but several years is probably a good average, so records were available at the time of SA's trial and for some time after.

Yes. The state is only supposed to share evidence with the defense via discovery. They are under no obligation to present exculpatory evidence to the jury. That's the defense's job. JMO

 

[proudfootz]

The issue with where and when this crime might have been committed speaks to who might be responsible for the crime.

If Teresa was killed at Zipperer's or at the quarry when we know Steven as at home talking to half the county on the telephone, that gives me more than reasonable doubt about claims he is guilty.

If the Sate presents no compelling reason to think the *67 calls were out of the ordinary, I have no reason to jump to that conclusion.

I have this old-fashioned idea about 'innocent until proven guilty' which does not require the defense to prove anything.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

In regard to the defense testing the bullet...

IIRC, the defense wanted to but there wasn't enough left to be able to.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

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



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?




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.




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 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]
.
Haven't fully caught up~~forgive me~~another child sick :facepalm:

Just reading here or there....

In regard to the *67~~has anyone ever thought there is a possibilty like Missy states that he didn't know if he had the correct number, thus the *67. We know TH made it there, took pictures, talked to SA. I believe it is a remote possibility that he confirmed with her at that time that that was her number in fact and thus the reason, there there was no *67 for the 4:35pm call. I think it is a remote possibility the 4:35pm call was a mistake while trying to enter her number into his PHONE CONTACTS and he accidentally dialed the number while trying to do this. I can't tell you how many times I've accidentally dialed a number while trying to add them as a contact in my cell phone.

Let me ask a rhetorical question. Why do you think a family is trying so hard to get him out? Has anyone ever thought about that? After all if he is guilty, they are going to have to live with a killer, a dangerous killer. Don't you think they would also fear for their lives if he is in fact guilty and he is let out?

I mean really~~it's not just his mom and dad, its brothers and sisters, even his ex-wife's new husband (PD), nieces and nephews, etc. I know someone's going to say for BrD's sake~~but think about that~~would you want your killer brother living next door to you, why not just fight for BrD? Please don't go to kill off the gene pool either, they are stupid people, because I don't buy that either and its just rude as you have never met these people before to make that judgement call.

I'm stepping down off my soap box now.

 

[IDK]

Dialing *67 is done when the caller doesn't want the receiver to know who's calling or doesn't want the receiver to know what number is being used to call from. It's done to hide or obscure that information. As we all know, it's a control tactic.

TH came out to the salvage yard many times before -- upwards of 15 times by some estimates. She was apparently professional or at least valued enough that SA wanted "the same girl as last time" (which just so happened to be the same girl who had been out many times before to photograph vehicles.)

It's curious why SA would feel compelled to hide his calling information from TH two times that day, in the 20 to 30 minutes before she finally showed up. She was the only person he did so in a day in which he made approximately 16 calls.

As far as we know, TH never bothered SA, did not give out his phone number, and took her photos and left. So the need for SA to hide his number from TH is curious. And then the last call he ever made to TH, the one call that proved TH's phone was not able to ping to any tower, he did not feel a need to hide his number. And on top of that he never again attempted to call TH for the reason some have assumed--to have her come back and take a hustle shot. He didn't call her ever again, he didn't call AutoTrader to try and schedule an appointment for the following Monday and supposedly he knew Mondays were TH's next scheduled availability for his area.

I'm sure that sequence of calls was noticed and made an impression on the jury. It's a piece of circumstantial evidence that most people would consider.

See bolded above.
I would only find it curious if we knew whether he had used *67 when calling Auto Trader or photographers previously. Also under what circumstances he used *67 in the past. Calls from one day does not prove/disprove a pattern, IMO.

Also, I strongly disagree with your statement , paraphrased here, that use of *67 is a 'control tactic". I do not agree in the slightest with your conclusion.

 

[Madeleine74]

*67 is 100% in the control of the person dialing it and making a call using it. *67/number blocking cannot be controlled by anyone else other than the person who dials it, thus the choice to use *67 is about control -- control over whether a name or phone number will be shown to the receiver of the call.

A several day or several week pattern of SA's calls is not necessary to ascertain what he did on the very day in question. The fact is he made about 16 calls that day and the only person he blocked his number to was TH the two times we know for a fact she was still alive. Clearly the number blocking feature was not set by default -- he had to dial *67 each time to block his number and he chose to do so.

Since the defense presented no evidence of their own or any explanation of why SA did this, nor did they present any evidence showing SA had a specific pattern of calling blocking, there's no reason to try and make up an excuse for SA's actions.

No evidence was presented to show TH made any other stop after the salvage yard. Assuming she must have done so in order to not make Avery the last stop and thus find someone else to blame (ABA/anyone but Avery) doesn't work. TH's phone's last known activity was around 2:45pm Oct 31. There is no evidence she was ever seen or heard from again by anyone in her life who knew her after her stop at the Avery Salvage Yard. Her phone was found destroyed, at least partially melted, in a burn barrel at the salvage yard. By the time SA made his 3rd and final call to TH, he chose not to dial *67. And, coincidentally, TH's phone could never connect to a tower again. A trained LE canine officer is who found the evidence--the scent which led human officers to that burn barrel and detected the scent of human remains.

The evidence is what it is, the calls are what they were, her charred body remains were found in SA's burn pit, buried under a layer of ash, intertwined with steel rims from tires used as accelerant. There is no evidence TH's remains were planted there.

Some theories will go as far as claiming TH was not killed, those weren't really her remains, there was no homicide, but if she was killed, then it was someone in LE who killed her and then burned her body and planted her remains. Not even SA's two highly regarded defense attorneys, who gave SA an aggressive defense, claimed that.