MaM a Year Later - Reconstruct the Crime

[CoolJ]

No, were you?

Can you please link to the clip of Buting "stuttering"?

 

[missy1974]

She was intercepted by SA before she had a chance. Imo he told her that BJ had to go somewhere and she left the money with him.

But according to Bobby, he watched her park, exit her vehicle, take the photo's, and he saw her walking towards SA's trailer. According to him, this took about 5 minutes, and by the looks of it, he watched her the whole time. He makes no mention of seeing Avery.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CASO-Investigative-Report.pdf#page=90

 

[missy1974]

That is not true. If the defense truely believed the blood was extracted from the vial and then planted, it would cost them nothing to get it tested because the State would pick up the tab. Not only did they not use this option, they attempted to block the State from testing it. This is outrageous imo.

Again, any idea of what lab they could have used? I'm not so sure about the cost being picked up by the State, could you provide more info about that?

 

[missy1974]

I'm curious what evidence that the testimony was somehow provoking Steven to commit a senseless and out of character crime.

Yet somehow, Steven sat in prison for an extra year or so while no action was taken to get this innocent man out.

Colborn doesn't write a report about this phone call until the day after Steven is actually released from prison.

What a stand up guy!

Colborn seems to have an issue with the simple task of 'report writing', which IMO is a big part of his job. He didn't write a report for the investigation at the Salvage Yard until June 2006 IIRC.

 

[missy1974]

I've posted up thread that the defense had access to all of the phone records via discovery and if those records show that Steven Avery used *67 in the past they would have certainly presented that evidence to the jury. Since they didn't, I believe that there is no record showing SA used *67 on any kind of regular or occasional basis before TH was killed.

The defense didn't need to pay an expert to look at those phone records. They looked at them themselves for no added cost. JMO

I think Buting and Strang have come out since the MaM series saying that they did the best that they could with the resources they had. They acknowledge "missing" things, like the last cell phone ping. They have also acknowledged that they were only 2 people, and they wished they had 1000's of people looking at the documents.

They also did not get rich taking on this case.

In the second part of a two-part interview, Strang explains the economics of the case, Avery's settlement with the state, and why he took Avery on as a client. He reveals that after expenses and overhead, he and his partner Jerry Buting were making just a bit over minimum wage.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/allenst...-cost-of-defending-steven-avery/#c67275c3d635 (I had to turn off my ad-blocker, just an fyi)

 

[BigCityAccountant]

 

[missy1974]

:newyear:

Happy New year everyone

 

[missy1974]

For anyone interested, here is a pre-trial motion hearing from Jan 2006. It discusses the labs that could do the EDTA testing, the FBI, and another one that both the defense and the State agreed was not a good option.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Motion-Hearing-2007Jan04.pdf#page=21

All other pre-trial motions can be found here: http://www.stevenaverycase.org/hearingtranscripts/

The stevenaverycase.org site (notice the .org) has all of the official documents from this case. It does have some unofficial photo's as well, but they are clearly labeled and under their own tab.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I think Buting and Strang have come out since the MaM series saying that they did the best that they could with the resources they had. They acknowledge "missing" things, like the last cell phone ping. They have also acknowledged that they were only 2 people, and they wished they had 1000's of people looking at the documents.

They also did not get rich taking on this case.

In the second part of a two-part interview, Strang explains the economics of the case, Avery's settlement with the state, and why he took Avery on as a client. He reveals that after expenses and overhead, he and his partner Jerry Buting were making just a bit over minimum wage.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/allenst...-cost-of-defending-steven-avery/#c67275c3d635 (I had to turn off my ad-blocker, just an fyi)

Did they mention missing *67 in phone records?

 

[Deleted member 39678]

'Making A Murderer' Attorney Dean Strang Explains The Real Cost of Defending Steven Avery

Part of the reason for having a strong defense team is to make sure that prosecutors and police follow the rules and don’t cut corners, and that’s something that goes beyond any individual case to benefit the system as a whole.

That’s absolutely right, Allen. The biggest cheerleaders for defense attorneys? Prosecutors and Judges. Why? Because they realize what can go wrong when there’s a defense lawyer who’s not up to the task. They get it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/allenst...ost-of-defending-steven-avery/5/#55848e6d7d10

 

[Limaes]

Can you please link to the clip of Buting "stuttering"?

I didn't say anything about a clip. Check out the trial transcripts. TBH, I can't even recall the guy's name.

 

[Limaes]

But according to Bobby, he watched her park, exit her vehicle, take the photo's, and he saw her walking towards SA's trailer. According to him, this took about 5 minutes, and by the looks of it, he watched her the whole time. He makes no mention of seeing Avery.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CASO-Investigative-Report.pdf#page=90

By the looks of it? He also says that he showered somewhere in that time frame. Do you recall SA's interviews? His version was similar as far as seeing her pull up (it is creepy that she was being watched from both homes) but he describes her as writing down the vin # after taking the photos, whereas BoD did not mention that, perhaps he wasn't looking the whole time. SA also claims that at this point, he went out to meet her and gave her the cash and a note. He later trips himself up by saying she came to the door and when the officer presses him, he quickly changes his story.

Was she reading the vin #? Or was she reading a note directing her to collect the money from SA's trailer?

 

[Limaes]

Again, any idea of what lab they could have used? I'm not so sure about the cost being picked up by the State, could you provide more info about that?

As I have discussed with you before, they didn't need to find a lab. All they had to do was let the State utilise the FBI testing and it would not cost a thing, but they attempted to block it. Strange how once the FBI results came in, after the trial had begun, they suddenly found a lab to do their testing. The Judge rightfully denied their request.

 

[proudfootz]

Can you please link to the clip of Buting "stuttering"?

I linked to the transcript way back on page 16 of this thread.

Not sure what significance 'stuttering' is supposed to have.

If we go by the evidence presented in court by this eye witness, during the time Steven is allegedly assaulting Teresa someone else is driving her SUV all over town.

 

[proudfootz]

Aww, I don't think anyone is trying to ignore you. There is a lot of back and forth going on and sometimes posts get "lost". We don't know what records were available to the defense. Maybe SA's attorneys did not realize that the use of *67 would come to be seen as such a pivotal piece of information. Many of us here don't find it suspicious or noteworthy in the slightest. Maybe his lawyers didn't see it that way either.

Exactly.

Without any kind of context, using *67 is as meaningless as whether Steven is left handed. So what?

 

[proudfootz]

But he didn't talk to Teresa, nor did he leave a voice message.

So, somehow not talking to Teresa, nor leaving any message, contributed to this 'luring'?

 

[proudfootz]

Which witnesses are these?

Steven Avery, Brendan Dassey, John Leurquin (whose sworn testimony already linked to), and someone named Knuteson who claims to have seen Teresa on the road side taking photos.

Knuteson is mentioned in this phone conversation - I'm not sure what - if any - follow up was conducted regarding this witness:

https://youtu.be/tlyBVBJKTeM

Her name comes up at about 4:30 into the call.

 

[proudfootz]

You have provided a link to a blog where the author readily admits he/she doesn't have a lot of info.

Rather than posting different links, here is one that provides extensive information about the EDTA tests along with facts about previous cases and sources are provided so you can read them for yourself.

http://stevenaverycase.com/blood-edta-test-explained#old

Saying "no reliable track record" is a little misleading imo. There is very little demand for this test because there aren't that many cases where LE have been accused of planting the defendant's blood. In both cases, where you will read about at the above link, have erred in favour of the defendent, not the Prosecution. Therefore, if this test was so unreliable, why did it not produce a positive result of EDTA like the other previous two cases?

At that link you will come to another link to the Journal of Analytic Toxicology. I have posted it before but it was ignored. The scientist explains all about the procedure and finishes off with stating that this test is a credible source to use in court. It was peer reviewed prior to this case which is probably why it was deemed credible by the court. It is the most credible source floating around the internet regarding the EDTA imo.

BBM

The sub-title of the article in Analytical Chemistry is A murder trial sheds light on the need for a better analytical method.

If I am reading this correctly, this test was used in three cases?

And the test used in the Halbach case is a 'new and improved' version of the test being used for the first time?

It does not seem to have an impressive track record IMO.

 

[Limaes]

Steven Avery, Brendan Dassey, John Leurquin (whose sworn testimony already linked to), and someone named Knuteson who claims to have seen Teresa on the road side taking photos.

Knuteson is mentioned in this phone conversation - I'm not sure what - if any - follow up was conducted regarding this witness:

https://youtu.be/tlyBVBJKTeM

Her name comes up at about 4:30 into the call.

BD - Was not there when SA claims she left
JL - Couldn't 100% nail down the day or the model of the car. He never once stated he seen who was driving let alone seeing Teresa Halbach. Again, he was not there at the time SA claims she left.
AK - Had seen news stories and claimed she saw someone fitting that description on the Tuesday morning. The defense didn't even use her at trial IIRC

 

[Limaes]

BBM

The sub-title of the article in Analytical Chemistry is A murder trial sheds light on the need for a better analytical method.

If I am reading this correctly, this test was used in three cases?

And the test used in the Halbach case is a 'new and improved' version of the test being used for the first time?

It does not seem to have an impressive track record IMO.

Yes, the title is referring to what happened at OJ's trial and the need for implementing new methods.

It ends with this...

"CE/MS techniques will undoubtedly become an important forensic technique because of the low
volumes of sample required for analysis, as well as the ability to use the mass spectrometer to achieve
selectivity higher than with any other on-line detector,
The question of blood-evidence tampering in a criminal trial has led not only to improved analytical
techniques for the determination of EDTA, but also to the demonstration that a relatively new technique
is ready to be used as credible scientific evidence in the courtroom.