MaM a Year Later - Reconstruct the Crime

[ILoveDateline]

Thanks all to whom have been helpful pointing me to records of evidence. I'd like to ask for a bit more help. Where can I find an account of SA's activity Nov 1-5 and what's the coles notes of the key points?

 

[ILoveDateline]

I'm going to go on a bit of a tirade...

As you may remember, I've been slothing through the show and evidence in tandem. Thanks to a friend at work, I found out that you can download programs from Netflix and watch while offline. This morning I watch the verdict (episode 8) on my train ride into work. It has really put a damper on my day. While it's really compelling television, I am frustrated and appalled at what a.....mockery (?), it seems against the reality of the case and trial. Sorry, I'm not really sure of my feelings or the words to describe them just yet.

I live in Canada. I am just flabbergasted at the difference of the US judicial system and how much of the trial is played out in the media. In MaM, the excused juror Mahler, said there were 3 juror adamant of SA's guilty and the final verdict must have been a compromise. I wanted to shout out "mistrial" right there on the train. Allowing jurors to talk to the media compromises their responsibility, safety and makes a spectacle only fit for gossip rags, IMO. I decided to look into juror responsibilities and according to the Wisconsin Juror Handbook, "You should not hesitate to change your opinion, if your reasoning and judgment have changed, but no juror is required to vote against personal conscience. The jury should work together to reach a verdict." This sounds fair enough, however, I also took a look at the judges instruction to the jury before deliberations. He basically said nothing. In Canada, this is one or two days on it's own where the Judge recounts most of the evidence and testimony and what is agreed to as fact and what the jury must decide upon for themselves. Its all just so very different.

Now I know, in addition to getting up to speed of the case, I also have a lot to learn about the applicable laws and judicial responsibility before I can properly make an informed decisions.

 

[missy1974]

Thanks all to whom have been helpful pointing me to records of evidence. I'd like to ask for a bit more help. Where can I find an account of SA's activity Nov 1-5 and what's the coles notes of the key points?

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/police-interviews-and-interrogations/

His interviews are listed here. There is audio for some. You will also find a few others there.

Off the top of my head.....
I think he said he went to work every day the rest of that week.

Tuesday evening IIRC he went to see Jodi (his gf) at the jail.

Wednesday.... I don't recall anything that stands out.

Thursday him and Earl went to an auction somewhere, got home that afternoon. I think he may have gone to put money on Jodi's account that day, but not 100% on that. I believe it was Thursday evening that Steve and Charles were going to Menards to get the wood or whatever for the cabin roof, when Steve saw 'lights' and turned around and went and looked around his place.
Thursday evening is also when Andy Colborn went to the Avery's and spoke to Steve.

Friday, I only recall that he was at Barb's with Bobby and his buddy, this is when Charles, who was with Brendan on his way to the cabin, called him about lights in the back corner of the yard (where the RAV4 was found) Steve, with one of the boys I think, to investigate.
Friday is when Lenk and Remiker went back to the Salvage Yard and did a walk through of his trailer.
Friday he was doing news interviews already. Here is one, it's the raw footage from NBC26 that they have released since MaM. [video=youtube;EtrzOgH2k10]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtrzOgH2k10[/video] The only thing I notice about that video is just how dark it is out there!

Saturday he left early in the morning with his mom and I believe Blaine, and went to the cabin in Crivitz.

That's all I can remember off the top of my head, hope it helps

 

[missy1974]

I'm going to go on a bit of a tirade...

As you may remember, I've been slothing through the show and evidence in tandem. Thanks to a friend at work, I found out that you can download programs from Netflix and watch while offline. This morning I watch the verdict (episode 8) on my train ride into work. It has really put a damper on my day. While it's really compelling television, I am frustrated and appalled at what a.....mockery (?), it seems against the reality of the case and trial. Sorry, I'm not really sure of my feelings or the words to describe them just yet.

I live in Canada. I am just flabbergasted at the difference of the US judicial system and how much of the trial is played out in the media. In MaM, the excused juror Mahler, said there were 3 juror adamant of SA's guilty and the final verdict must have been a compromise. I wanted to shout out "mistrial" right there on the train. Allowing jurors to talk to the media compromises their responsibility, safety and makes a spectacle only fit for gossip rags, IMO. I decided to look into juror responsibilities and according to the Wisconsin Juror Handbook, "You should not hesitate to change your opinion, if your reasoning and judgment have changed, but no juror is required to vote against personal conscience. The jury should work together to reach a verdict." This sounds fair enough, however, I also took a look at the judges instruction to the jury before deliberations. He basically said nothing. In Canada, this is one or two days on it's own where the Judge recounts most of the evidence and testimony and what is agreed to as fact and what the jury must decide upon for themselves. Its all just so very different.

Now I know, in addition to getting up to speed of the case, I also have a lot to learn about the applicable laws and judicial responsibility before I can properly make an informed decisions.

OMG I am so with you on some of these feelings!

:canada:

I have followed many cases from the U.S. over the years, and sometimes I find it unbelievable what they are allowed to do. For example... The press conference that Kratz had, if a prosecutor was to do that in Canada, the person being charged would never see the inside of a jail IMO The tainting of public opinion and prejudicial nature of that press conference just blows my mind. I get that by law the prosecutor can say whatever they want publicly as long as it's in the criminal complaint, but when that same prosecutor is also the one that wrote the criminal complaint, there doesn't seem to be a checks and balances process. JMO

As for the final verdict... I believe it was brought up after the verdict by SA's lawyers that the verdict's were inconsistent. Guilty of murder but not guilty of mutilation of a corpse and they felt it was a compromised verdict. I will see if I can find the documents for you.

And yep, the jury instructions here in Canada are much more detailed and long. I didn't realize it until recently when following a fairly local case when it took a day and a half to read instructions to the jury and then they had to dismiss that jury the next day for some unknown reason (as of now because of course, by law, it can't be released here lol).

 

[missy1974]

Some info about the inconsistent verdicts, The defense put it in a Motion for a New Trial. Unfortunately, I don't see a copy of the answer to this motion from the State.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Defendants-Motion-for-New-Trial.pdf


Here is a hearing transcript dealing with the above motion:

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c.../Post-Conviction-Motion-Hearing-2007May22.pdf

 

[ILoveDateline]

Thanks so much. I listened to to the Nov 5 interview and read the report. Its was Bryan who went with SA and his mom to the cabin. So many B boy names.

How interesting about the vehicle lights spotted on the 3 & 4. Was that mentioned at trial?

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/police-interviews-and-interrogations/

His interviews are listed here. There is audio for some. You will also find a few others there.

Off the top of my head.....
I think he said he went to work every day the rest of that week.

Tuesday evening IIRC he went to see Jodi (his gf) at the jail.

Wednesday.... I don't recall anything that stands out.

Thursday him and Earl went to an auction somewhere, got home that afternoon. I think he may have gone to put money on Jodi's account that day, but not 100% on that. I believe it was Thursday evening that Steve and Charles were going to Menards to get the wood or whatever for the cabin roof, when Steve saw 'lights' and turned around and went and looked around his place.
Thursday evening is also when Andy Colborn went to the Avery's and spoke to Steve.

Friday, I only recall that he was at Barb's with Bobby and his buddy, this is when Charles, who was with Brendan on his way to the cabin, called him about lights in the back corner of the yard (where the RAV4 was found) Steve, with one of the boys I think, to investigate.
Friday is when Lenk and Remiker went back to the Salvage Yard and did a walk through of his trailer.
Friday he was doing news interviews already. Here is one, it's the raw footage from NBC26 that they have released since MaM. [video=youtube;EtrzOgH2k10]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtrzOgH2k10[/video] The only thing I notice about that video is just how dark it is out there!

Saturday he left early in the morning with his mom and I believe Blaine, and went to the cabin in Crivitz.

That's all I can remember off the top of my head, hope it helps

 

[robin8]

Absolutely. You can see this effect in the first forum topic for TH when she went missing (2005). Before KK went public with his gruesome fable, that thread had a number of people who were not convinced SA killed her.

Right after the "news" conference, there was a huge shift to "Villagers With Torches Lit" on that thread. It's a spectacular and breathtaking view of how anyone could be set up, to be viewed as a monster if that's what LE wants out there.

If I have learned anything from being a member here, it is to never believe I am getting the whole true story from the press. Ever.

The original Teresa Halbach missing thread is worth reading again imo:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...anitowoc-31-Oct-2005&highlight=Teresa+halbach

It really is a good insight into the case as it covers a lot of ground from different views and was live posting/reflection, different to how we are seeing it now.

I took Safeguards awesome advice (thanks! :tyou and started reading through, then was absorbed and ended up on case records and then onto twitter and articles... in a nutshell I found this snippet. Just reading this part made me wonder how we can debate over and over about use of *67 and those coincidences, but ignore these from the other side.

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/n...scientific-testing-begin-avery-case/94353426/


'A spare key for Halbach’s vehicle found in Avery’s bedroom by Manitowoc County Sheriff’s deputies James Lenk and Andrew Colborn.
The swab from the hood latch of Halbach’s RAV4 that later generated a DNA profile for Avery. Forensic testing on the hood latch was not performed by the Wisconsin State Crime Lab in Madison, even though the lab initially impounded the vehicle and conducted a battery of standard forensic tests. Rather, the swab of the hood latch that yielded the DNA profile of the murder defendant did not occur until six months later. In April 2006, Calumet County sheriff’s officials decided to carry out their own forensic testing of the hood area'


Why don't we discuss how it can come to be that State Crime Lab did routine testing and missed DNA, then a whole period of time later passes and then LE looking at that particular area found it.... not in an obscure place, but just there, on the hood. Because of error? Sure are a fair few errors and delays when finding the initial evidence for experts in LE - how many years did some of them have in service? They weren't all rookies right?

What with the key... the DNA... :thinking:

 

[dexter75]

Thank you. You're too kind. I'm going to try hard not to let this validation get to my head.

This thread is so fast-paced, look away fro a couple of days and it seams near impossible to catch up but I finally have.

You're welcome😊
I know just what you mean about catching up here when ya miss a day😉
Anything can happen and fast😉

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[missy1974]

It really is a good insight into the case as it covers a lot of ground from different views and was live posting/reflection, different to how we are seeing it now.

I took Safeguards awesome advice (thanks! :tyou and started reading through, then was absorbed and ended up on case records and then onto twitter and articles... in a nutshell I found this snippet. Just reading this part made me wonder how we can debate over and over about use of *67 and those coincidences, but ignore these from the other side.

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/n...scientific-testing-begin-avery-case/94353426/


'A spare key for Halbach’s vehicle found in Avery’s bedroom by Manitowoc County Sheriff’s deputies James Lenk and Andrew Colborn.
The swab from the hood latch of Halbach’s RAV4 that later generated a DNA profile for Avery. Forensic testing on the hood latch was not performed by the Wisconsin State Crime Lab in Madison, even though the lab initially impounded the vehicle and conducted a battery of standard forensic tests. Rather, the swab of the hood latch that yielded the DNA profile of the murder defendant did not occur until six months later. In April 2006, Calumet County sheriff’s officials decided to carry out their own forensic testing of the hood area'


Why don't we discuss how it can come to be that State Crime Lab did routine testing and missed DNA, then a whole period of time later passes and then LE looking at that particular area found it.... not in an obscure place, but just there, on the hood. Because of error? Sure are a fair few errors and delays when finding the initial evidence for experts in LE - how many years did some of them have in service? They weren't all rookies right?

What with the key... the DNA... :thinking:

The quote from the article is a bit misleading. The swabs were taken by Calumet County officers (Tyson and Hawkins) but they were sent to the Crime Lab and were analyzed by Sherry Culhane. But yes... it was months later, and a month after Kratz held his press conference. IMO a responsible prosecutor would have checked to see if there was any physical evidence to support BD's claim of rape, torture, mutilation, etc. before speaking publicly like he did.

Anyway, I had to go look at the CASO reports so I guess I could share the links haha

Tyson's report (although it says Hawkins, it was a typo according to Tyson's testimony :biggrin: )
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CASO-Investigative-Report.pdf#page=936

Hawkin's report:
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CASO-Investigative-Report.pdf#page=886

The same day they were also looking at other evidence, the headboard (with Sheriff Pagel, Wiegert, and Fassbender present) and the mattress.

Oh and.... love how Ferak (author of the article), refers to the key as the SPARE KEY now. I wonder what he thinks about the key? lol

 

[missy1974]

Thanks so much. I listened to to the Nov 5 interview and read the report. Its was Bryan who went with SA and his mom to the cabin. So many B boy names.

How interesting about the vehicle lights spotted on the 3 & 4. Was that mentioned at trial?

Yep, the B's are hard to keep up with lol

I think they tried with Bobby, but he didn't have any recollection of going with Steven to look on the Friday night. Charles and Steve didn't testify, and neither did Brendan, so I don't think there would have been any other way to get that information in there.

It may have been brought up in Brendan's trial because Brendan actually testified, and since he was with Charles on the 4th, he could testify to it, although I think he said he didn't see the lights, Charles said he saw it in his rearview mirror or mirrors as he was driving out of the property.

I will see if I have a picture or can show you a picture of where, IMO, the lights were spotted. Are you familiar with the property yet? have you looked at any of the photo's?

 

[ILoveDateline]

Yep, the B's are hard to keep up with lol

I think they tried with Bobby, but he didn't have any recollection of going with Steven to look on the Friday night. Charles and Steve didn't testify, and neither did Brendan, so I don't think there would have been any other way to get that information in there.

It may have been brought up in Brendan's trial because Brendan actually testified, and since he was with Charles on the 4th, he could testify to it, although I think he said he didn't see the lights, Charles said he saw it in his rearview mirror or mirrors as he was driving out of the property.

I will see if I have a picture or can show you a picture of where, IMO, the lights were spotted. Are you familiar with the property yet? have you looked at any of the photo's?

Thanks Missy. I've looked at the maps, renderings and aerial shots.

The other thing that stuck out to me from the Nov 5 interview was that SA said his mom brought his mail to him on the 31st.

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

 

[missy1974]

Thanks Missy. I've looked at the maps, renderings and aerial shots.

The other thing that stuck out to me from the Nov 5 interview was that SA said his mom brought his mail to him on the 31st.

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

I think someone said that she brought the mail to him all the time. I think he also had supper there almost every night, or he did that week. Just my own thoughts, but I think he probably went there to eat around that time because his gf was in jail and not at home, and hadn't been since August.

That day when she brought the mail, is when he said that his mom mentioned the loader and getting it put into AutoTrader IIRC

Unfortunately, we don't have his mom's interviews available to read, I would like to know if she said the same or not.

 

[proudfootz]

OMG I am so with you on some of these feelings!

:canada:

I have followed many cases from the U.S. over the years, and sometimes I find it unbelievable what they are allowed to do. For example... The press conference that Kratz had, if a prosecutor was to do that in Canada, the person being charged would never see the inside of a jail IMO The tainting of public opinion and prejudicial nature of that press conference just blows my mind. I get that by law the prosecutor can say whatever they want publicly as long as it's in the criminal complaint, but when that same prosecutor is also the one that wrote the criminal complaint, there doesn't seem to be a checks and balances process. JMO

As for the final verdict... I believe it was brought up after the verdict by SA's lawyers that the verdict's were inconsistent. Guilty of murder but not guilty of mutilation of a corpse and they felt it was a compromised verdict. I will see if I can find the documents for you.

And yep, the jury instructions here in Canada are much more detailed and long. I didn't realize it until recently when following a fairly local case when it took a day and a half to read instructions to the jury and then they had to dismiss that jury the next day for some unknown reason (as of now because of course, by law, it can't be released here lol).

Here's a link to The Docket podcast where the series Making a Murderer is discussed from a Canadian perspective.

http://www.michaelspratt.com/poadcast-legal-matters/making-a-murderer-after-show-episode-1

The hosts have legal training and have occasional guests.

Forgive me if someone's already linked to this and everyone is so bored of it!

 

[ILoveDateline]

Here's a link to The Docket podcast where the series Making a Murderer is discussed from a Canadian perspective.

http://www.michaelspratt.com/poadcast-legal-matters/making-a-murderer-after-show-episode-1

The hosts have legal training and have occasional guests.

Forgive me if someone's already linked to this and everyone is so bored of it!

Thanks. I found this podcast when researching the forensic anthropologist for the defense, Dr. Scott Fairgrieves, who is Canadian. I only listened to the one podcast but it was good and he was the perfect guest/witness to showcase the difference between US and Canada.

I'll give the series a listen, thanks.

Keep the suggestions coming.

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

It really is a good insight into the case as it covers a lot of ground from different views and was live posting/reflection, different to how we are seeing it now.

I took Safeguards awesome advice (thanks! :tyou and started reading through, then was absorbed and ended up on case records and then onto twitter and articles... in a nutshell I found this snippet. Just reading this part made me wonder how we can debate over and over about use of *67 and those coincidences, but ignore these from the other side.

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/n...scientific-testing-begin-avery-case/94353426/


'A spare key for Halbach’s vehicle found in Avery’s bedroom by Manitowoc County Sheriff’s deputies James Lenk and Andrew Colborn.
The swab from the hood latch of Halbach’s RAV4 that later generated a DNA profile for Avery. Forensic testing on the hood latch was not performed by the Wisconsin State Crime Lab in Madison, even though the lab initially impounded the vehicle and conducted a battery of standard forensic tests. Rather, the swab of the hood latch that yielded the DNA profile of the murder defendant did not occur until six months later. In April 2006, Calumet County sheriff’s officials decided to carry out their own forensic testing of the hood area'


Why don't we discuss how it can come to be that State Crime Lab did routine testing and missed DNA, then a whole period of time later passes and then LE looking at that particular area found it.... not in an obscure place, but just there, on the hood. Because of error? Sure are a fair few errors and delays when finding the initial evidence for experts in LE - how many years did some of them have in service? They weren't all rookies right?

What with the key... the DNA... :thinking:

Doesn't it though? Ready to burn him at the steak immediately.
I like the way you think, Robin8😊

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[missy1974]

Here's a link to The Docket podcast where the series Making a Murderer is discussed from a Canadian perspective.

http://www.michaelspratt.com/poadcast-legal-matters/making-a-murderer-after-show-episode-1

The hosts have legal training and have occasional guests.

Forgive me if someone's already linked to this and everyone is so bored of it!

It's been a long time since it's been posted, so much appreciated. They interviewed the forensic anthropologist, Scott Fairgrieve, that testified for Steven Avery, it was interesting!

direct link to that show: http://www.michaelspratt.com/poadca...rer-after-show-special-guest-scott-fairgrieve

 

[missy1974]

Thanks. I found this podcast when researching the forensic anthropologist for the defense, Dr. Scott Fairgrieves, who is Canadian. I only listened to the one podcast but it was good and he was the perfect guest/witness to showcase the difference between US and Canada.

I'll give the series a listen, thanks.

Keep the suggestions coming.

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

oops LOL I just posted the link ;-) :skip:

love that you are doing research and not just watching the show and making up your mind I do think that's what most of us did here, just started before you. Can't wait for you to 'catch up', although, you are doing a great job already!

 

[dexter75]

oops LOL I just posted the link ;-) :skip:

love that you are doing research and not just watching the show and making up your mind I do think that's what most of us did here, just started before you. Can't wait for you to 'catch up', although, you are doing a great job already!

Isn't it great Missy? And it's eye opening for sure. I get annoyed when I see folks reference MaM and start preaching, ( no matter what side of the fence they're on ) or assume the documentary is gospel and that's all there is.
Good luck Robin8! Missy is like Dustin Hoffman in " Rain Man " when it comes to remembering the ins & outs of this case😉
Should you have any questions along the way😊

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[missy1974]

Isn't it great Missy? And it's eye opening for sure. I get annoyed when I see folks reference MaM and start preaching, ( no matter what side of the fence they're on ) or assume the documentary is gospel and that's all there is.
Good luck Robin8! Missy is like Dustin Hoffman in " Rain Man " when it comes to remembering the ins & outs of this case��
Should you have any questions along the way��

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

:laughing:

I have so much bookmarked, it's crazy! and google chrome was my saviour when my laptop died in the summer, I was able to log in to chrome and I still had them all! I learned quick to save all my "Avery files" in my online storage too ;-)

The stevenaverycase.org has made it super easy for me too, don't know what I would do without it!

 

[Limaes]

So now there is a note?

I should have been more clear. My question about now there is a note.... I meant a note telling TH to go to his house.

The note that SA talks about giving TH along with the money, would have been the description of the van for the ad for AutoTrader to run.

I see you went and looked at SA's interviews between posts and now acknowledge him mentioning a note?

You asked a question and I gave you a few possible scenarios.

After looking back through this part of his interviews, something has occured to me that I hadn't thought of. She had been there several times, along with the female photographer before her. He was very familiar with their routine including writing down the vin # etc. Add this knowledge of SA's to the note found inside his trailer saying something about back to the patio door , I think it is within the realm of possibility that he left a similar note on the van right where he knew she was going to read it. It is something I am keeping on the table even though it is not needed to prove his guilt. Even SA doesn't deny speaking with her although he changes his story as to whether it was at his door or out by the van.