Post Conviction Brief

[CoolJ]

Oh boy, so much to talk about!

 

[missy1974]

Page 142

Bullet contained fragments of wood, something red unidentified but not blood, possibly paint deposited AFTER bullet fired. Wax present which is consistent from experts testing the bullets used to hold the bullet, red/black/white fibers present.

Keep reading... there was wood with bullet holes, and the ceiling in the garage is red!!! Her staff has taken samples and they are being tested right now ;-)

 

[missy1974]

Instead, Dr. Reich determined that the
DNA extracted from the swab of the Toyota sub-key came from skin cells of Mr. Avery.
However, Dr. Reich concluded that the DNA on Item C was planted because the amount
of DNA detected by the WSCL was ten times greater than what Mr. A very actually
deposited on an exemplar sub-key by holding it.


They actually had SA hold a key for 12 minutes and swabbed it, it produced 10 times less DNA than TH's key.

 

[missy1974]

Oh boy, so much to talk about!

I cannot wait for all the Exhibits!

 

[LaneGirl]

Page 145 starts the brain fingerprinting. Meets WA standards (cited standards) then...


Briefly stated, brain fingerprinting detects information stored in the brain by measuring
brainwave activity in response to certain stimuli, i.e., the P300, and/or the more recently developed P300-MERMER, effect. (Affidavit of Dr. Lawrence Farwell, P-C Exhibit 100, 110).

 

[LaneGirl]

Keep reading... there was wood with bullet holes, and the ceiling in the garage is red!!! Her staff has taken samples and they are being tested right now ;-)

heeehee see post 100. We posted at the same time lol

 

[LaneGirl]

Page 148 what brain fingering does and doesn't do (its not a lie detector test).

ack my copy paste won't work over two pages, ugggg

Short summary brain lights up if stimuli is recognized (words, phrases or pictures). Example things held back that only a perp would know the brain reacts to that stimuli. My laymen interpretation.

Used new evidence like blood cast off analysis (TH hit back of head in RAV) and where killer would be standing etc. Avery didn't recognize.

ETA - hummmm

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Missy~~~You were so right about DP...

2:27 p.m. Ms. Pliszka called Ms. Halbach. Ms. Pliszka's account of her conversation with Ms. Halbach is not credible. At trial, Ms. Pliszka testified that it was Ms. Halbach who called her at 2:27 p.m. on October 31 , 2005. (TT:2/13 :80). Ms. Halbach's phone records, as reflected in Mr. Kratz's summary exhibit, show that it was AutoTrader who called Ms. Halbach, not vice versa. (Trial Exhibits 361 and 362; TT:2/27:186-87). Trial defense counsel failed to impeach Ms. Pliszka's testimony effectively that Ms. Halbach initiated the 2:27 p.m. call on October 31 , 2005. Had trial defense counsel impeached Ms. Pliszka, they could
have shown that her testimony was not credible about her alleged contact with Ms. Halbach, effectively undermining Ms. Pliszka's testimony that Ms. Halbach told her that she was on her way to the A very property at the time of the call.
(TT:2/13:80) (Interviews of Dawn Pliszka, attached and incorporated herein as P-C Group Exhibit 102, STATE 5572).

I know I've said it before~~but~~~I would hate to be one of your kids...LOL I bet they can't get ANYTHING by you...LOL

 

[LaneGirl]

brain fingering cont....

for example - SA asked to select method of TH dying choice of three - SA choose common knowledge bullet (and not new evidence based on blood spatter)golf club, deep stream.

Yeah I'm not feeling this stuff but if anyone would like to expound because it just seems well strange to me.

 

[missy1974]

Missy~~~You were so right about DP...

2:27 p.m. Ms. Pliszka called Ms. Halbach. Ms. Pliszka's account of her conversation with Ms. Halbach is not credible. At trial, Ms. Pliszka testified that it was Ms. Halbach who called her at 2:27 p.m. on October 31 , 2005. (TT:2/13 :80). Ms. Halbach's phone records, as reflected in Mr. Kratz's summary exhibit, show that it was AutoTrader who called Ms. Halbach, not vice versa. (Trial Exhibits 361 and 362; TT:2/27:186-87). Trial defense counsel failed to impeach Ms. Pliszka's testimony effectively that Ms. Halbach initiated the 2:27 p.m. call on October 31 , 2005. Had trial defense counsel impeached Ms. Pliszka, they could
have shown that her testimony was not credible about her alleged contact with Ms. Halbach, effectively undermining Ms. Pliszka's testimony that Ms. Halbach told her that she was on her way to the A very property at the time of the call.
(TT:2/13:80) (Interviews of Dawn Pliszka, attached and incorporated herein as P-C Group Exhibit 102, STATE 5572).

I know I've said it before~~but~~~I would hate to be one of your kids...LOL I bet they can't get ANYTHING by you...LOL

Yep, I read that! LOL I have to run out for a bit, but I want to go back and look at phone records!

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Yep, I read that! LOL I have to run out for a bit, but I want to go back and look at phone records!

LOL~~~I'm already on those!!! What in particular were you looking at??

 

[BigCityAccountant]

8:57 p.m.: Jodi called Mr. A very from the jail phone and the couple again spoke for the maximum time allowed from jail phones. This call was recorded by the jail. Brendan went home before Jodi called and by the time Brendan left, the fire had burned down to ash. (Jail Phone Log, P-C Exhibit 76, STATE 1_9308).

I'm wondering if just the call was on the jail phone log or if it was discussed on the recorded call??

 

[BigCityAccountant]

OMG~~~there is so much here that we've discussed over and over and over again..

Of the seven messages recorded on October 31, 2005, only two were not deleted. Before October 31, 2005, 15
minutes and 21 seconds of Ms. Halbach's voicemail was occupied by voice messages.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

If trial defense counsel had called Mr. Radandt as a witness his testimony would have demonstrated to the jury that the investigators knew Ms. Halbach's vehicle had been driven through his gravel pit and planted on Mr. Avery's property. The
jury would also have learned of the efforts of the investigators to pressure Mr. Radandt to exaggerate the size of the fire.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

A new witness sees RAV-4 and white jeep...

A new witness describes seeing a vehicle similar to Ms. Halbach's RAV-4, followed by a white jeep, enter the Radandt Pit from Jambo Creek Road using an access road immediately south of his house. Only the white jeep returned. (See 290- 291, inf,-a).

ETA - who drives a white jeep?

Hum...based upon further reading and KZ stating that Colburn was there with his "personal vehicle" I wonder if Colburn drives a white jeep?????

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Suspiciously, Mr. Kratz never played the recording of the 2: 12 p.m. voicemail for the jury. It is reasonable to conclude that Mr. Kratz concealed the 2:12 p.m. voicemail because it confirmed that the Zipperers' residence was Ms. Halbach's last stop. Corroboration of this assertion is found in a recorded conversation between Inv. Wiegert and Det. Remiker on November 5, 2005, about the sequence of Ms. Halbach's appointments on October 31 , 2005. In that conversation, which occurred after interviews with Mr. Schmitz, Mr. Avery, and Mr. Zipperer, they concluded that Ms. Halbach's first appointment was with Mr. Schmitz, her second appointment was with the Averys, and her third appointment was with the Zipperers. (11/5/05 Wiegert/Remiker recording, P-C Exhibit 71). Obviously, Inv. Wiegert and Det. Remiker based their conclusion on the Zipperer voicemail left by Ms. Halbach, which was listened to by investigators on November 3, 2005, at the Zipperer residence and recorded to a CD on November 6, 2005 (11/3/05 CCSD Report, P-C Exhibit 73, STATE 2497), and having interviewed both Mr. Avery and Mr. Zipperer. Clearly, the destruction and/or concealment of Ms. Halbach's voicemail to the Zipperers' leads to the reasonable conclusion that her voicemail refuted Mr. Kratz's timeline and so it was concealed from trial defense counsel.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Mr. Farwell used the opinion of Mr. James that, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty in the field of bloodstain
pattern analysis, the bloodstain pattern observed on the interior cargo door of Ms. Halbach's RA V-4 is consistent with a cast-off pattern, which in turn indicates that Ms. Halbach was hit with an object when she was behind her car and while the cargo door was open.

Not sure who stated this, (Safeguard? Dexter? Cool J? IDK?) but I do recall talking about where TH was murdered. Someone, I don't recall who~~mentioned they thought the blood splatter indicated she was behind her car while the cargo door was open. Whoever it was~~looks life you were correct.

 

[missy1974]

Had to go out for a bit... had some time to think and absorb some of this!!

I now have to wonder if #checkaduhid was a typo and was meant to say #checkcduhid in light of knowing that Kratz "hid" a CD and it can't be found!

 

[missy1974]

ohhh in regards to the damage to the RAV4...

Northwest of Mr. Avery' s trailer, between the
Avery property and the cul-de-sac at Kuss Road, there was a metal post protruding
approximately 2 ½ feet from the ground.

ETA: looks like they subpoenaed her insurance info too...

Current post-conviction counsel, through its
investigator, has confirmed that Ms. Halbach never filed an insurance claim for this
damage to her vehicle, and further contends that the damage to Ms. Halbach's vehicle
occurred after she left the Avery property on October 31 , 2005. (Response to Subpoena to
Erie Insurance, attached and incorporated herein as P-C Exhibit 59)

 

[BigCityAccountant]

GOTTA LOVE IT!!!!

Mr. Gershman holds the following opinions to a reasonable degree of ce1iainty as an expert on the subjects of criminal procedure, prosecutorial misconduct, and professional ethics:

a. Mr. Kratz's statements at his press conferences constituted professional misconduct;

b. Mr. Kratz's charging Mr. Avery based upon Brendan's confession constituted professional misconduct;


c. Mr. Kratz's attempt to introduce allegations of Mr. Avery's prior wrongful acts into his 2007 criminal trial constituted
professional misconduct;


d. Mr. Kratz's pursuit of inconsistent and irreconcilable theories at the separate trials of Mr. A very and Brendan constituted
professional misconduct;


e. Mr. Kratz's request for an aiding and abetting instruction in Mr. Avery's trial constituted professional misconduct;


f. Mr. Kratz's public dissemination of inflammatory information about Mr. Avery constituted professional misconduct; and


g. Mr. Kratz's jailhouse contacts with Mr. Avery constituted professional misconduct.

Maybe Colburn and Kratz can go in business together??