Phone Calls and Phone Records

[Sinsaint]

according to the transcripts... the handler said 2 of the barrels behind the Janda/Dassey residence.

ETA: I think I might have linked it in the bones or bonfire thread. Lots of cross over information in those threads

Barrels used to burn trash which would include, among other things, animal bones. I read the dog hit on a golf cart. The same golf cart that was being used to hunt, kill and presumably carry off dead animals. I'm amazed anyone thought this dog was a reliable tool for discovering evidence.

Anyway, my initial question that I never got around to regarding a cadaver dog is moot now considering the dog hits on anything. I wonder if a new dog, reliable trained and tested, would hit on the RAV4. If it did it would prove she was laying dead in the back of that SUV which would be huge problem with the current narrative Kratz would like us to believe.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Lol... Did you notice in Avery's Nov. 6th interview they were asking him about his burn pit, or if he had one? That was a couple days before they even found the bones.

WOW--good catch---that interview was by Marinette County....I'm guessing someone from Manitowoc County "filled him in"---what would make him asked the questions about the burn barrels or burn pit.

It is possible though since the cadaver dog hit on the burn barrels and the burn pit (as I recall it couldn't get close to the burn pit because of SA's dog wouldn't let them get close to it) that they thought they should mention it to Marinette County to ask him about that....

It was the interview from Nov. 6th---had it been before the cadaver dog hit---then that would be really really suspicious.

 

[missy1974]

WOW--good catch---that interview was by Marinette County....I'm guessing someone from Manitowoc County "filled him in"---what would make him asked the questions about the burn barrels or burn pit.

It is possible though since the cadaver dog hit on the burn barrels and the burn pit (as I recall it couldn't get close to the burn pit because of SA's dog wouldn't let them get close to it) that they thought they should mention it to Marinette County to ask him about that....

It was the interview from Nov. 6th---had it been before the cadaver dog hit---then that would be really really suspicious.

Ok, but at this point... the 6th... the day before, on the 5th, the dog did hit on the barrel's.... they didn't take those barrel's in until the 8th... what happened in those 3 days???? no one investigated those barrel's on the 5th? the 6th? the 7th?

I would like to see the handlers testimony in video... she said she had to hold Brutus back at the propane tank because of the other dog (that is as close to the pit that she got).... but yet the dog ran from her and went to the barrels..... look at where that propane tank is and then look at the barrels... that dog had to pass the burnpit at some point to get to the barrels, didn't it???? unless it went all the way around to the front of the garage and around? but that's not what I understand from the testimony. And ... to me... she said she had control of the dog at the propane tank? then how did it run to the barrel's? And if the majority of the remains were in the burnpit and if that dog was so set on getting to those burn barrel's to do his job... he would have gone to the burnpit first to do his job IMO

this is probably the best "photo" that we are going to get ... LOL how sad! LOL but hopefully you can see what I mean. Brutus passed the burnpit to get the barrels. IMO Brutus was not that bothered or distracted by that dog if it decided to run over to the barrels and hit on them.

 

[MysticJynx]

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...rial-Exhibit-359-Avery-Call-Log-2005Oct31.pdf

The weird 920 323 # that I thought looked weird with the 608 phone number. The one that lists to Tina Talkington. well that was SA's number. So possibly called his own voicemail?

 

[missy1974]

I still think it was an incoming call Mystic... and he was on the phone already, or dialing, to someone else (the call on line 75 right under it). I think because he was on the phone, it went to voicemail. All his calls for that day... they are all ougoing calls, except for that one IMO and that's why it looks different.

 

[MysticJynx]

I still think it was an incoming call Mystic... and he was on the phone already, or dialing, to someone else (the call on line 75 right under it). I think because he was on the phone, it went to voicemail. All his calls for that day... they are all ougoing calls, except for that one IMO and that's why it looks different.

But the 920-323 was his own number. this one doesnt have the numbers blocked out. it also has that weird 608 in the caller line where it should have shown his number. http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...rial-Exhibit-359-Avery-Call-Log-2005Oct31.pdf

 

[missy1974]

But the 920-323 was his own number. this one doesnt have the numbers blocked out. it also has that weird 608 in the caller line where it should have shown his number. http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...rial-Exhibit-359-Avery-Call-Log-2005Oct31.pdf

at the top it says Calling number.... and Dialed number.... That's why I think it was an incoming call. The 608 was the calling number... and they called his number. and then the way it shows the rest of the number (GBAYMILW####)... it reminds me of how TH's were recorded when they went to voicemail.

I wouldn't read too much into that call Mystic. the 608-266 #'s seem to be similar to the one's he was calling, the Gov't mental health services one's... If I was to take a guess.... he was calling, getting voicemail on their end and he was getting a call back (usually gov't numbers at least here in Canada they have numerous outgoing lines and the numbers may not be the same as what you call when calling them)

 

[BigCityAccountant]

at the top it says Calling number.... and Dialed number.... That's why I think it was an incoming call. The 608 was the calling number... and they called his number. and then the way it shows the rest of the number (GBAYMILW####)... it reminds me of how TH's were recorded when they went to voicemail.

I wouldn't read too much into that call Mystic. the 608-266 #'s seem to be similar to the one's he was calling, the Gov't mental health services one's... If I was to take a guess.... he was calling, getting voicemail on their end and he was getting a call back (usually gov't numbers at least here in Canada they have numerous outgoing lines and the numbers may not be the same as what you call when calling them)

Yep--we agree on that--I think it was an incoming call that he let go to voicemail or he put the first call on hold while he answered the other. Kind of like when someone is calling you now and you say hold on a minute to answer the other call.

 

[MysticJynx]

See it was his number in that column all the way down. So I thought that meant his phone. But that one column says another number with his number in the other two columns. So this is an incoming call I guess I could see how that reflects an incoming call. Only one incoming call all day.
The Tina Talkington number was his number back then.

 

[missy1974]

He didn't dial the number.... the 608 number dialed his number.

All the other numbers look like he dialed out, so yep, this would be his only incoming call for the day. And then it looks like it went to voicemail? or maybe it was that "the caller is away from their phone or out of the calling area" message? LOL I can't remember what it says when a cell phone is busy or not answering and doesn't have voicemail?

 

[MysticJynx]

He didn't dial the number.... the 608 number dialed his number.

All the other numbers look like he dialed out, so yep, this would be his only incoming call for the day. And then it looks like it went to voicemail? or maybe it was that "the caller is away from their phone or out of the calling area" message? LOL I can't remember what it says when a cell phone is busy or not answering and doesn't have voicemail?

Right I see that now. that was an incoming to his number. and then he must have gotten a second call at the same time and put whomever on hold or when he disconnected to answer the other call the first call took a while to disconnect.

But at least I know now who Tina Talkington is. That was his cell number back then.

 

[missy1974]

ahhh I didn't even think that he could have put one on hold for the other ;-) could be!

 

[Madeleine74]

Avery's 3 calls to TH that one day trips him up. The *67, twice, to a person he *knew* shows intent to disguise the number. It shows who was particularly focused on getting TH to the property. TH wasn't 'the media,' she wasn't some looky-loo, she wasn't trying to be in SA's life, he wanted her to come to his property that day and he hid his phone number.

Those calls help set the timeline. Call #3 proves TH never got that message and it proves her phone was no longer pinging to any tower. A bonfire was started about an hour, possibly less, after that final phone call from Avery.

 

[MysticJynx]

Avery's 3 calls to TH that one day trips him up. The *67, twice, to a person he *knew* shows intent to disguise the number. It shows who was particularly focused on getting TH to the property. TH wasn't 'the media,' she wasn't some looky-loo, she wasn't trying to be in SA's life, he wanted her to come to his property that day and he hid his phone number.

Those calls help set the timeline. Call #3 proves TH never got that message and it proves her phone was no longer pinging to any tower. A bonfire was started about an hour, possibly less, after that final phone call from Avery.

I use star 67 when using my personal Cell phone too. Guess that makes me a murderer. Or maybe I'm targeting the people not in my inner circle and I dont want to have my number. You do not know why he used that feature and cannot connect him to being a murderer. In you dont know if they had a conversation about it. maybe he told her he tried to call and she told him she dont answer restricted numbers. So when he wanted to get that loader in he tried her without it. Since we have very limited bills of hers and no house phon records, same with his we cant say for sure if this was a habit of his. Or if he called her for the hustle shot on his phone on oct 10. If he was targeting her why not just call her phone? why set it up through auto trader. HELLO? THE PHONE CALLS PROVE NOTHING Other than he called her. Circumstantial evidence.

 

[Madeleine74]

I use star 67 when using my personal Cell phone too. Guess that makes me a murderer.

If you have a burned body in your backyard after you had a several hour bonfire, a cut on your finger, your blood in the burned victim's vehicle, the victim's vehicle which is also found in your yard or near your house, you had an appointment with the victim that was confirmed the very day they disappeared, never to be heard from again, a bullet fragment that was ballistically tested and determined to be fired from the rifle that was in your house, specifically the rifle was found in your bedroom, which you controlled, and the bullet fragment found on your property had DNA of the victim on it, AND you called the victim 3 times the day they were murdered, 2 times dialing *67, but one time you didn't, then yes, that very likely makes you a murderer. And if that did happen you'd probably be convicted of murder.

He called her THREE times that very day. You can pretend it isn't relevant or important, but it is. It trips him up, it sets the timeline. Even his own defense team recognized that evidence.

 

[MysticJynx]

If you have a burned body in your backyard after you had a several hour bonfire, a cut on your finger, your blood in the burned victim's vehicle, the victim's vehicle which is also found in your yard or near your house, you had an appointment with the victim that was confirmed the very day they disappeared, never to be heard from again, a bullet fragment that was ballistically tested and determined to be fired from the rifle that was in your house, specifically the rifle was found in your bedroom, which you controlled, and the bullet fragment found on your property had DNA of the victim on it, AND you called the victim 3 times the day they were murdered, 2 times dialing *67, but one time you didn't, then yes, that very likely makes you a murderer. And if that did happen you'd probably be convicted of murder.

He called her THREE times that very day. You can pretend it isn't relevant or important, but it is. It trips him up, it sets the timeline. Even his own defense team recognized that evidence.

THere is no proof he burned tha tbody in the backyard either. Considering there were bones in more than one place. it suggests they were moved there. Neither expert could CONCLUSIVELY say that was the burn area. MORE DOUBT

Bullet fragment deviated from protocol. DOUBT.
Bullet was not conculsively connected to the gun that had none of SA's DNA on it. In which the owner of the trailer said it was his gun and had always hung there. They could not ballistically connect it to that gun. Just that it was a bullet from a 22. It was to FLATTENED to conclusively connect to that gun, that wasnt even his according to the person he rented the trailer from.

Reasonable DOubt

You seem to not even care to look at the evidence that is presented by the defense. You don't seem to care to see the other side. Just the prosecution, Go back and read the transcripts. Not everything the state wants you to believe can be CONCLUSIVELY linked to steven avery. Causing Reasonable doubt.

Including your Bullet, Dna and ballistics. and The Bones.

 

[Madeleine74]

You say 'doubt,' the jury of 12 unanimously said 'guilty.'

It's a good thing guilt does not have to be determined only from a video of the perp committing the crime(s). While that's the only way a crime and perp identity can be believed by some segment of the population, that's not the legal standard. Our system is certainly not perfect, but the U.S. has one of the best systems in the world, backed by a constitution that is an amazing and wise document from the greatest minds.

 

[MysticJynx]

You say 'doubt,' the jury of 12 unanimously said 'guilty.'

It's a good thing guilt does not have to be determined only from a video of the perp committing the crime(s). While that's the only way a crime and perp identity can be believed by some segment of the population, that's not the legal standard. Our system is certainly not perfect, but the U.S. has one of the best systems in the world, backed by a constitution that is an amazing and wise document from the greatest minds.

And his first jury was wrong with PB. so how do i know that this jury wasn't wrong too. Juries have been wrong before. ANd now there is questions of them having doubt. Hell the one juror went to BD's trial LOOKING FOR ANSWERS. Answers she should have already known considering she CONVICTED A MAN for life. SHe showed signs of doubt not even a month after her own verdict. So the jury means nothing. The pool for the jury was tainted. And the jury itself was tainted with a COUNTY SHERIFF VOLUNTEER. One of the jurors was dismissed because a family member was injured. Can you imagine what might have been going through their minds not really knowing why he had an Emergency. NO none of us can and since only 4 have spoken out one showing doubt in 2007, one being the volunteer and one being the dismissed. oh and the anonymous one. Thats 3 doubted and 1 guilty. How did they come up with that unanimously, how do you know they were not under pressure of fear or not. YOU DO NOT KNOW!. Please if all you have to contribute is that 12 jurors said so, please go back to that thread you created about him being guilty, cause here it means nothing to me. We already know the jury found him guilty. that is not a question or not. the question is did they get it right. AND i dont think so. so i will look at what they were looking at and see if i come up with the same guilty and I DONT.

 

[Madeleine74]

so how do i know that this jury wasn't wrong too.

You can't know unless you were there, the perp confesses, or there is a video of the crime committed. Well, BD gave a confession but that's not trusted or believed, so...


Jury #1 1985: had direct evidence: eye witness to the crime (the victim). Except... that eye witness was mistaken. There was circumstantial evidence but science hadn't advanced far enough at that point for DNA testing. DNA is circumstantial evidence, and it's often considered one of the most powerful forms of circumstantial evidence. It was DNA that eventually exonerated SA.

Jury in TH Murder 2007: had circumstantial evidence: DNA, blood, hair, location & condition of the body, activities testified to, phone calls, photographs, expert testimony, various witnesses. There was no direct evidence: no eye witness testimony given to them about the crime, BD's confession was not used, and there was no video of the crime being committed.

 

[MysticJynx]

You can't know unless you were there, the perp confesses, or there is a video of the crime committed. Well, BD gave a confession but that's not trusted or believed, so...


Jury #1 1985: had direct evidence: eye witness to the crime (the victim). Except... that eye witness was mistaken. There was circumstantial evidence but science hadn't advanced far enough at that point for DNA testing. DNA is circumstantial evidence, and it's often considered one of the most powerful forms of circumstantial evidence. It was DNA that eventually exonerated SA.

Jury in TH Murder 2007: had circumstantial evidence: DNA, blood, hair, location & condition of the body, activities testified to, phone calls, photographs, expert testimony, various witnesses. There was no direct evidence: no eye witness testimony given to them about the crime, BD's confession was not used, and there was no video of the crime being committed.

And had they listened to any of the rebutting they should have had doubt. Starting to think that the jury was sitting there asleep with their eyes open. JMO.