Had Scott, Barb, Blaine and Bobby, pictured above as the guilty verdict was read at Brendan's trial, told the truth in their statements and testimonies (better yet, had they consulted an attorney and invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination), Brendan, and perhaps Steven, would not have gone to prison for crimes against Teresa Halbach.
"Mr. Kratz is well-aware that other individuals lied about their contacts with Ms. Halbach on 10/31". - Kathleen Zellner's statement to Dateline, February 2017On November 5, 2005, when police took control of the Avery property, Blaine and Brendan Dassey's bus driver told police that at 3:40 p.m. on October 31st, when she dropped off the brothers, she saw a woman taking pictures of a van parked at the intersection of Avery Road and the shared driveway leading to the homes of Barb Janda and Steven Avery.
Also on November 5th, DCI agent Kim Skorlinski contacted Barb Janda, who agreed to bring Blaine to the Cedar Ridge Restaurant in Maribel so that they could "ask him a few questions that had to be clarified" (CASO page 282). At 5:00 p.m., CASO deputy Wendy Baldwin and DCI agent Skorlinski "made contact with Blaine." Skorlinski wrote a report on their contact with Blaine; however, this report was not entered into evidence at Avery's trial.
The following map of the property must have been drawn by Blaine during his interview on November 5th, although it was included in the DCI report of his second interview on November 7th, and the date of the map was changed.
During cross examination at Avery's trial, Strang asked Blaine about the interrogation at Cedar Ridge Restaurant (page 103), but Strang misrepresented this meeting as having taken place on November 15th:
Q. The Cedar Ridge Restaurant?
A. Yes.
Q. Over in Maribel, near you?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Was your mom there for that?
A. Yes.
Q. Just you and your mom?
A. Yup.
Q. And then a couple of officers or agents?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you guys sit across the table from the agents, in the restaurant?
A. Yes.
Q. Did there come a time in that discussion between you and your mom and the agents, when the agents sort of got in your face a little bit?
A. Yes.
Q. What were they doing to get in your face?
A. They were arguing.
Q. They were arguing?
A. Yes.
Q. They raised their voices?
A. Yes.
Q. They got angry?
A. Yes.
Q. They accused you guys of not accepting that Steve was guilty, didn't they?
A. Yes.
Q. They accused you of embarrassing yourselves by believing in your uncle, didn't they?
A. Yes.
Q. They tried to convince you that Steven Avery was guilty, didn't they?
A. Yes.
Q. And they got loud about it, at the restaurant?
A. Yes.
Q. And then they stomped off and left you there, when you wouldn't turn on your uncle, didn't they?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was back in November 15 of 2005.
A. Yes.
ATTORNEY STRANG: That's all I have.
Two days later, on November 7, 2005, at 10:11 a.m., Agents Debra Strauss and Lisa Wilson of Wisconsin DOJ, Division of Criminal Investigation, interviewed Blaine Dassey at the home of his boss, Michael Kornely, where he had been staying since November 4th (trial exhibit 355).
On November 7th, Blaine told the DCI agents Strauss and Wilson that he did not see anyone or any vehicle that did not normally belong in the driveway when he and Brendan got off the bus and together walked directly to their house on October 31st. He explained that a red and black Blazer and a Monte Carlo/Grand Prix were parked at the mailboxes, where the school bus driver picks them up and drops them off. He said he did not see Steven Avery when he got off the bus. He said that Bobby was sleeping in his bedroom when they got home, and that them coming home woke Bobby up.
Blaine said he listened to the message that Teresa Halbach left on their answering machine. He recalled her saying that she would be at their residence to take pictures between 1:00 and 2:00 p.m., and he recalled that she left a callback number to reschedule if necessary. Blaine said that Barb had placed ads in AutoTrader in the past, the most recent being for a black Lincoln.
Blaine said he was picked up by a friend's mother at 5:20 p.m. to go trick-or-treating and that he returned at approximately 9:30 p.m. He said when he got home, Barbara, Bobby and Brendan were inside and awake. He said he went to bed shortly after he got home, sometime between 9:30 and 10:00 p.m. He said he didn't recall anything unusual happening that evening after he went to bed.
Blaine said he didn't recall anyone using the burn barrels that day. He said that the last time he recalled anyone using the burn barrels was Thursday, November 3rd.
When asked if there were any bonfires the week of October 31st, Blaine said there weren't any.
The DCI agents asked Blaine "if he had seen any media coverage of the missing woman, including her name and picture of her vehicle." He said that he had "but these photos did not help Blaine recall having seen Halbach or her vehicle before."
Blaine was questioned about the Suzuki and snowmobile in the garage. He was asked to describe in detail the trailer that had been used to transport the Skidoo snowmobile from Crivitz to the Avery property.
Blaine was asked if he recalled Steven coming to the house and asking for assistance in moving a Suzuki or a snowmobile into the garage. Blaine said he did not. Blaine said if Steve would have made such a request, Blaine would have remembered
Blaine asked if he could describe where the gray Suzuki was normally kept. Blaine responded that for the last week or two, this Suzuki was parked on the side of Steve's garage closest to Blaine's house. Blaine said he thought Steve's plan was to fix the Suzuki so Blaine's grandpa, Allen Avery, could take it to the cabin in Crivitz. [This could be interpreted as the Susuki being parked on the east of the garage, inside or outside.]
Blaine was asked where the Suzuki currently was located. Blaine said he thought it was still parked next to Steve's garage. [This could be Fassbender twisting Blaine's words by using the word "next" when Blaine could have said it was still parked on the side of the garage closest to his house.]
Blaine was asked what he knew about Steve's snowmobile. Blaine responded Steve brought this snowmobile back from his grandpa's cabin about one week ago. Blaine was with Steve when Steve did this. According to Blaine, the snowmobile was put on a trailer and brought back home. Blaine did not help Steve unload this trailer because the snowmobile had been left on the trailer. As of the week of 10/31/2005, Blaine thought the snowmobile was still on the trailer. [Steve brought the Suzuki home on 10/30 from someone named Tim, and he also brought the snowmobile home from Crivitz on 10/30.]
Blaine was asked to describe the trailer. Blaine described this trailer as approximately 14' long, black metal with a drop ramp, and approximately 2' sides. Blaine said this trailer is capable of hauling two snowmobiles. This trailer is actually Barb's trailer and usually sits [sic] on the left side of Barb's garage.
The two DCI agents returned on November 11th to re-interview Blaine about any bonfires the week of October 31st. Blaine said he was "supposed to have a girl over to his house for a bonfire" but the "bonfire never took place" because the girl said "she did not want to come out for a bonfire."
To summarize, Blaine was questioned on November 5th, 7th and 11th.
During cross examination of Blaine at Avery's trial, Strang was mistaken about an interview occurring on November 15th (page 83). There was an interview on November 5th at Cedar Ridge Restaurant (unless Baldwin misrepresented the date in her report on CASO page 282, and this interview actually occurred on November 15th and not November 5th).
Q. Good morning.
A. Good morning.
Q. I'm going to call you Mr. Dassey, even though you-- I guess you are 18 now, you turned 18?
A. Yes.
Q. Since this is a little bit of a formal place; do you mind if I address you as Mr. Dassey?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes, you do mind?
A. Or no.
Q. All right. Mr. Dassey, you have been approached by the police a number of times, I think, since October 31, 2005, haven't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Started probably a week later, on November 7?
A. Yes.
Q. And on November 11?
A. Yes.
Q. November 15?
A. Yes.
Q. And times after that, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Right up through today, when you talked to Mr. Fassbender during the break?
A. Yes.
Q. And the police have asked you the same questions over, and over, and over, about October 31, haven't they?
A. Yes.
Q. You give them an answer?
A. Yes.
Q. And if they don't like the answer, they ask you again?
A. Yes.
Other than the excerpts of testimony above, Blaine outright lied at Avery's trial (page 52). Blaine caved into pressure from Scott and Barb to change his original statements to match the State's narrative. Kratz wrote the script, which he rehearsed with Blaine prior to Avery's trial. Blaine followed Krtatz's script when he testified, but his performance wasn't flawless.
The following are Blaine's lies about October 31st during direct examination by Kratz.
1. The bus dropped him off at 3:40 (he originally said the bus drops him off between 3:30 and 4:00 p.m.).
2. He got home from trick-or-treating at 11 p.m. (he originally said he got home at 9:30 p.m.).
3. As he was walking from the bus stop to his home, at 3:46 or 3:47 p.m., he saw Steven bringing a plastic bag to his burning barrel (he originally said he didn't see Steven that day).
4. When Steven threw the plastic bag into barrel, there was smoke and flames coming out of the barrel (he originally said he didn't see Steven that day, he didn't see anyone using burn barrels that day, and burn barrels were used on November 3rd).
5. When he got home at 11 p.m. he saw one person, who he believed to be Steven, sitting and watching a bonfire with four to five foot flames behind his garage. (He orginally said that he got home at 9:30 p.m., and that when he got home he didn't see anyone outside; he also originally said he hadn't seen Steven that day and that there weren't any bonfires that day or that week.)
6. When he got home at 11 p.m. he went to bed in the bedroom he shared with Brendan, but Brendan wasn't in the bedroom (he originally said that when he got home at 9:30 p.m., Barb, Brendan and Bobby were inside, and then he went to bed by 10 p.m.).
7. At 3:45 p.m. he saw the Suzuki parked on the "right side, outside of the garage" (he originally said that for the last week or two, this Suzuki was parked on the side of Steven's garage closest to Blaine's house, meaning the inside of the garage).
8. Kratz, knowing that Blaine screwed up, used a diagram to have Blaine point out where the Suzuki was parked, and Kratz clarified for the jury that Blaine is "pointing to the outside of what would be Steven Avery's garage, just to the left side." (Fassbender twisted Blaine's words in his report of Strauss and Wilson's November 7th interview with Blaine, writing that "when asked where the Suzuki currently was located, Blaine said he thought it was still parked next to Steve's garage." However, Blaine hadn't said it was "parked next to Steve's garage;" he said it was "parked on the side of Steven's garage closest to Blaine's house.")
9. He also noticed a snowmobile outside, parked in "back of, behind the Suzuki." (He originally said Steven had towed the snowmobile from his grandpa's cabin about one week ago, on October 30th, and that the snowmobile had been left on the trailer. He also said that as of the week of October 31st, he thought the snowmobile was still on the trailer.) Kratz stopped at this point to add the following:
Q. Now, I'm just asking you about your observations, Blaine, I don't know -- I don't care who you talked to, or what somebody might have said, but just what you saw with your own eyes, okay?10. Because Blaine, when asked twice before about the burn barrel, didn't say, as he had rehearsed with Kratz, that he saw white smoke, which would be the color of smoke if plastic were burning, Kratz asked him a third time about the burn barrel:
A. Okay.
Q. Do you remember seeing, with your own eyes, or remembering your own observations, whether or not that Suzuki and that snowmobile were moved somewhere else, at some point after the 31st of October?
A. I'm not sure, no.
Q. Okay. You just remember the 31st, that they were next to the garage; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, can you describe for the jury the smoke or anything else that you saw coming out of that burn barrel when you got home that day?
ATTORNEY STRANG: Asked and answered, twice.
ATTORNEY KRATZ: I want him to describe, if he can, I want to know if he can describe the color, or if there were flames, or more descriptive of what he saw, Judge. That has not been answered.
ATTORNEY STRANG: It's been asked and answered, twice.
THE COURT: I know the question has been answered if there was something coming out of it. I don't remember if there was a request for a description, so I will allow the question.
Q. (By Attorney Kratz)~ If you remember, Blaine, do you remember anything coming out of that burn barrel?
A. Yeah, white smoke.(Blaine originally said there weren't any fires in burn barrels that day.)
The screenshots above and below are from CASO's November 4th flyover of the Avery property. Many portions of the recording seemed to be intentionally blurred, especially the areas in front of Avery's truck and Barb Janda's shed, where Avery parked the trailer after returning it to Barb. Are the trailer and Skidoo snowmobile parked between Avery's truck and the garage overhead door in the screenshots above and below?
The flyover video from November 4th is blurred but there appears to be something between Avery's truck and his garage overhead door (image above). That something could be the Skidoo snowmobile on the trailer Avery borrowed from Barb to haul the snowmobile from Crivitz to his home on October 30th. That snowmobile on the trailer would have been blocking the garage overhead door, preventing anyone from pushing the Suzuki outside the garage, as the State claims was done to make room for Teresa's RAV4 on October 31st.
Avery's truck was parked to the side of his garage overhead door when law enforcement commandeered the property on November 5th (Steven and other family members were at the family cabin in Crivitz). The trailer used to tow the Skidoo snowmobile from Crivitz to the Avery property on October 30th had been parked, with the Skidoo still on it, in front of Avery's garage overhead door. Prior to November 4th, Avery had moved the Skidoo inside his garage and moved the trailer, which belonged to Barb, beside her home.
On October 30th, Avery used Barb Janda's trailer and his Ford truck to tow a Skidoo snowmobile from Crivitz to the Avery property. According to Blaine, he was with Steven when he towed it on October 30th; and during the week of October 31st, it was still on the trailer as far as he could remember (Blaine stayed at the home of his boss November 4-12th). Avery had moved the Skidoo off the trailer and into his garage prior to the evening of November 4th, and then returned the trailer to Barb, moving it to the side of her home.
The image above is from a flyover video taken by a drone on October 31, 2016. The large yellow box at the bottom of the image is the turnaround on Avery Road, near the mailboxes, where the school bus driver dropped off the Dassey brothers. The tiny pink box at the top of the image is where the minivan that Teresa photographed was parked on October 31, 2005. The distance is about 1000 feet or 333 yards (the length of about three football fields). The school bus driver said she saw Teresa taking pictures of a van by the mailboxes (the yellow box); however, the van that Teresa photographed was parked in the long, shared driveway between Steven Avery and Barb Janda's homes (the pink box).
Screenshot of a 2016 drone flyover of the Avery property.
In the image above, the spot where the bus driver picked up and dropped off the Dassey brothers is marked with the yellow box. It is at the end of Avery Road, where it intersects with the long shared driveway to Barb and Steven's homes. The spot where Barb's van was parked on October 31st, and the days that followed, is marked with the pink box.
On November 5th, the day police took over the Avery property, the bus driver for the Dassey brothers approached law enforcement at barriers on HWY 147 and County Road Q (she walked there from her home on County Road Q). She told them that on October 31st around 3:40 p.m. she saw a women, who she thought was Teresa, talking pictures at the spot where she dropped off the Dassey brothers. She gave a statement to Wiegert two days later, on November 7th, and clearly stated that it was at the intersection of Avery Road and the long, shared driveway where she saw Teresa taking pictures of a van. But the van was not parked at the spot. It was parked down the shared driveway, near Steven's trailer.
The bus driver was mistaken. She did not see Teresa on October 31st. She may have seen a women taking pictures of a vehicle parked at the mailboxes since there was a red and black Blazer, along with a Monte Carlo/Grand Prix, for sale on that day; or she saw Teresa taking pictures three weeks earlier, on October 10th, when she came to the Avery property to photograph the Grand Prix that Steven wanted to sell. Steven said Teresa usually came between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m., so it is likely the bus driver never saw Teresa at any time or on any day because she dropped off the boys between 3:30 and 3:45 p.m.
On Saturday, November 5th, the bus driver, who lived on County Road Q, walked to the barrier at the intersection of HWY 147 and County Road Q and told law enforcement at the barrier that she saw Teresa taking pictures when she dropped off Blaine and Brendan Dassey on October 31st at 3:40 p.m.
She was called in to give a statement two days later, on November 7th.
The following is the bus driver's statement, taken by Wiegert on November 7th, and an excerpt from her testimony at Avery's trial.
Page 140
TYPE OF ACTIVITY: Interview of: Lisa K. Buchner
DATE OF ACTIVITY: 11/07/05
REPORTING OFFICER: Inv. Mark Wiegert
On 11/07/05 at 12:00 p.m., I (Inv. MARK WIEGERT of the CALUMET COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT) met with LISA BUCHNER inside the command post at the AVERY property. LISA informed me she was a school bus driver and would pick up several children at the AVERY properly and drop them off.
LISA states sometime between Monday, 10/31/05, and Wednesday, 11/02/05, she saw a female taking pictures around 3:30 p.m. I asked LISA if she could be more specific as to the date to which she stated she could not, she just knows it was sometime either Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday.
LISA told me she drops off the two boys that live down the lane. She believes their names are BRENDAN and BLAINE DASSEY. She states she comes down Avery Lane and drops them off at the beginning of the driveway, which goes to the west.
LISA states she remembers a van being parked at the entrance to the driveway pointed eastbound. She states the van would have been parked at the intersection of Avery Lane and the driveway on the north side of the road, again pointed east. She stated the unknown female was standing in the grass north of where the van would have been parked taking pictures. LISA stated to me, "I thought to myself why would anyone take pictures of that junk." I asked LISA if anyone was with the female. She stated she did not recall anyone being with her.
She states there was a Grand Prix and a truck also parked in that area. She said it is the same two vehicles that are parked there now; however, the van was not there now.
I asked LISA if she observed the boys talking or associating with the female to which LISA stated she does not remember if they talked to her or not when they got off the bus.
I asked LISA if she knew anything about the weather that day to which she stated she does not remember anything about the weather. LISA indicated nothing about that day stands out.
She stated she just remembered this on Saturday, 11/05/05, and thought it would be important that we would know this information. That was the end of my conversation with LISA.
Day 19 – 2007 March 8
Witnesses
Lisa Buchner
School Bus Driver
Dropped off Brendan & Blaine, 31 October
Direct Examination [page 102]
Cross-Examination [page 114]
Redirect Examination [page 21]
Q Okay. Um, during the week of -- that began on
Monday, October 31, 2005, um, do you remember
seeing anything that, you know, you remembered
later when you dropped the Dassey boys off on
that -- that week?
A I, um, remember seeing a woman taking photographs.
Q Could you tell what the woman was taking
photographs of?
A A van.
Q And where -- where was the woman taking
photographs of a van?
A In the driveway.
Q The driveway you just described?
A Yeah. The one on the right.
Q Okay. About -- Could you see about how far down
the van was?
A It was right by the pavement. In the -- I mean,
right at -- right there. I don't know.
Q Okay. Um, remember anything about the van?
A It was -- No, it was junk.
Q Okay. All right. And, um, do you remember
where -- How did you know the woman was taking
photographs?
A I saw a woman taking photographs. I saw a camera.
Q Okay. Um, at the time, I assume, this was no big deal?
A No.
Q All right. Uh, how is it that you later remembered that?
A I remember, um, that I -- I was laying -- laying down
on the couch and I remembered that I made the comment
to myself, um, why would anybody take a piece -- a
picture of that piece of junk?
Q Okay. Um, and within a few days after this, um,
did -- were you encountering the -- the road
being closed off by police in that general area?
A The road was closed off, yes.
Q I mean, a few days after the -- you saw this
woman taking photographs of the van?
A Um, when I remembered, it was already closed off.
Q Okay. Um, now, as you sit here today, do you --
do you remember what day, exactly, of the week of
October 31 you saw the woman taking photographs
of the junky van?
A Uh, no I don't remember the day.
Q Okay. Do -- was there only one day when you saw
a woman in October, 2005, or early November, if
that's what it was, taking pictures --
ATTORNEY GAHN: Objection, Your Honor.
The -- He's leading the witness for a while now.
THE COURT: Um, well, I don't think that
last question's leading so I'm going to allow it.
ATTORNEY STRANG: Okay.
Q (By Attorney Strang) Was -- was there more than
one day in this time period when you saw a woman
taking photographs of the junky van?
A Uh, not that I remember. I only remember seeing one
woman taking pictures.
Q Okay. Um, do you personally know Steven Avery?
A No.
Q Uh, do you personally know any of Halbach family?
A No.
Q Okay. Um, I -- I -- I take it, if I understand,
you -- you simply happened to be a bus driver who
dropped the Dassey boys off?
A Yes.
Q And picked them up?
A Yes.
Q Um, when you saw this woman taking the
photographs, was -- was that when you were
dropping the Dassey boys off or some other time?
A Um, when I was dropping them off.
Q Okay. So in -- again, that would have been about
when? What --
114
A Three-thirty.
Q -- time of day?
A I'm sorry. Three-thirty to three-forty.
Q That's all I have. Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Gahn?
ATTORNEY GAHN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
ATTORNEY GAHN: Thank you.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY ATTORNEY GAHN:
Q Good afternoon, Ms. Buchner. Um, do you recall
when you, um, reported this? What -- Your
observations to the police?
A I believe it was Saturday.
Q Saturday? Could -- could it have been, um,
Monday? The following Monday? On -- on
November 7 --
A Could have been.
Q -- do you recall? Okay. And do you remember,
um, how did you contact the police?
A I walked up to the barrier.
Q And, um -- and what prompted you to -- to go to
the police?
A Because I had remembered seeing a woman taking
pictures.
115
Q Okay.
A And I thought maybe I should say something.
Q As a good citizen?
A Yeah.
Q Okay. And, um, do you, um, remember who you
talked to?
A Um, when?
Q Uh, when you reported this.
A Uh, when I walked up to the barrier, and there was a
woman cop, and I spoke -- spoke to a male cop, but I
don't remember the name.
Q And this was over at the Avery Salvage Yard you
went to report this; correct?
A It was -- it was at a barrier by my house.
Q I'm sorry? By where?
A By my house where I lived.
Q Do you live nearby?
A Yeah. I did.
Q Do you -- so -- where did you live, then?
A I lived, um, on County Road Q.
Q And how far was that from the Avery Salvage Yard?
A I don't know. Not far. I don't --
Q Uh, did you drive over there or walk over there?
A I walked to the barrier at the intersection.
Q Okay. And -- and when you say "the barrier", you
mean the barrier over at the Avery Salvage Yard?
A No. The barrier at the intersection of Q and -- and
147. The barrier --
Q But then from there did you go further to the,
um -- towards the Avery property?
A An -- another day I did. They called me back a
different day.
Q Oh. And -- and -- All right. So -- Did you talk
to anyone or tell anyone that first time you went
to the barrier?
A Tell them what?
Q What you just -- what you're telling today?
A Yes.
Q And then you say you went back again?
A And gave a statement.
Q Okay. And do you remember to whom it was you
gave a statement?
A No.
Q Okay. Could it have been Detective -- Officer
Wiegert, here?
A Um --
Q He's sitting right here behind --
A The glasses? I -- I think I was in his -- in his
cruise -- in his cop car. I don't -- I don't
117
remember. There was a cop I talked to, too, and then
somebody in a building.
Q And was that over by the Avery Salvage Yard?
A Yes.
Q Okay. All right. Um, and you -- you told him on
that day these observations of yours; correct?
A Yes.
Q And you can't tell us, though, to the exactly
what day it was you made these observations?
A No.
Q And can you say for sure whether it was the week
of October 31?
A No.
Q Could it have been before October 31?
A Yes.
Q Could it have been a week before?
A Yes.
Q Could it have been two weeks before?
A Yes. I -- I don't know.
Q So you don't know exactly when it was you saw
this woman taking pictures?
A No.
Q And do you remember -- Well, let me ask you this:
How close did you get to her?
A I have no idea how far away it would have been. I
118
was in a school bus, dropped kids off and drove away.
I'm --
Q I mean, um, five feet? Ten feet? Twenty feet
away?
A Um, not really sure.
Q Um, two blocks away?
A No.
Q Okay. Could you just give us an idea --
A Um --
Q -- of how far away she was when you saw her? And
it's okay if you can't.
A I -- I have no idea.
Q And that's okay. Um, and do you know where the
vehicles were that she was taking photographs of?
A They were at the end of the driveway.
Q And at the end of the -- where you enter the
Avery property?
A The, uh -- the gravel driveway to the right off of,
um, Avery Road by the mailboxes.
The school bus turnaround was by the mailboxes, where Avery Road intersects with the shared driveway that led to Barb and Steven's homes. In the image above, the mailbox and turnaround area are marked with a yellow circle and the location of Barb's van on the day it was photographed by Teresa is marked with a pink circle.
Lisa Buchner, the school bus driver, said she saw Teresa taking pictures at the start of the shared driveway, by the mailboxes on Avery Road. On October 10th, Buchner may have seen Teresa, which was the day she came to the Avery property to photograph Steven's Grand Prix. Steven parked the vehicles he had for sale at the intersection of the shared driveway and Avery Road, near the mailboxes and the school bus turnaround. Or the bus driver may have seen another woman taking pictures of a vehicle parked by the mailboxes; the woman may have been taking pictures because she was interested in buying one of the vehicles that was for sale. Steven had a Blazer and Grand Prix for sale at the time. At the time Teresa disappeared, the Grand Prix was directly behind the Blazer, which was red and black (Barb's van was also red).
Q By -- Um, if you were to see a diagram of that
property, could that help you?
A Yes.
Q Very good. Thank you, ma'am. I'm putting up,
um, what has been previously, in this trial,
ma'am, as Exhibit 81, and I'm going to ask you,
119
does that have the road that you would drive down
to pick up or drop off the boys?
A The, um, road where all the cars are parked? That's
Avery Road?
Q Okay. Is it -- And -- and to -- are you sh --
sure that's Av -- that's Avery Road?
A I -- I don't know. I'm asking. Is it?
Q Okay. Yes, that's Avery Road.
A And then the gravel road would be the one to the
right there.
Q And where were the -- where -- If I were to give
you a laser pointer, could you show us where the
woman was taking pictures on this --
A Yes.
Q Okay. And, also, um, Ms. Buchner, let me know if
it would be helpful, because we can zoom in to
these intersections --
A Okay.
Q -- and make this closer. Could -- could you show
the jurors where Avery Road is and --
A Oh.
Q -- where you would drive your bus in?
A I would drive this way and then drop off right there.
Q Okay. That's where you would drop off the boys?
A Yeah. And then turn around right there.
120
Q All right. And where did you see the woman who
you believe was taking the pictures?
A Would be in the middle of right there. And --
Q And --
A -- taking --
Q You're -- You're doing just fine. Thank you.
Could you also -- Would there be any way to show
the jurors where you believe the cars were that
she was taking photographs of?
A Um, right there would be -- right there and on both
sides of this driveway right there. There was the
van, and then a car, and then a car on the other
side, and I think a car behind it, but I'm not sure.
Q And when you dropped the boys off after school,
is that where you always dropped them off?
A Yes.
Q Do you know how many cars she was taking
photographs of?
A No.
Q And, um, could you describe any of the clothing?
A No.
Q Could it have been a man with long hair?
A I don't think so.
Q Okay. I -- I'm just -- I know -- You're --
you're sure it was a woman?
121
A Yes, I remember it being a woman.
Q Okay. All right. Thank you so much, Ms.
Buchner. Appreciate it.
THE COURT: Mr. Strang?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. STRANG:
Q Ms. Buchner, um, I understand you don't remember
the day anymore, but did you -- did you -- did --
did you -- you walked up to tell the police about
this on your own?
A Yes.
Q And was that just a few days after this happened?
A Um, I believe it was Saturday.
Q Of the same week?
A Right.
Q At the end of that week? Okay. And then you --
then they asked you to come back a few days later
and give a statement?
A Yes.
Q But that was still a week or a little more than a
week after this -- after you saw this woman
taking the picture of the van?
A Yes.
Q Uh, that's all I have. Thanks.
THE COURT: Very well. You are excused.
122
Defense may call its next witness.
Interestingly, Blaine first was interviewed on November 5th by DCI agent Kim Skorlinski and CASO detective Wendy Baldwin, but this report is not available online and Skorlinski didn't testify at Brendan's or Steven Avery's trial. Additionally, the report filed by Wendy Baldwin that references this November 5th activity wasn't filed until later, sometime after November 22, 2005 (see images below).
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF BLAINE DASSEY BY ATTORNEY STRANG:
20 Q. Good morning.
21 A. Good morning.
22 Q. I'm going to call you Mr. Dassey, even though you
23 -- I guess you are 18 now, you turned 18?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Since this is a little bit of a formal place; do
1 you mind if I address you as Mr. Dassey?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Yes, you do mind?
4 A. Or no.
5 Q. All right. Mr. Dassey, you have been approached
6 by the police a number of times, I think, since
7 October 31, 2005, haven't you?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Started probably a week later, on November 7?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And on November 11?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. November 15?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And times after that, right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Right up through today, when you talked to
18 Mr. Fassbender during the break?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And the police have asked you the same questions
21 over, and over, and over, about October 31,
22 haven't they?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. You give them an answer?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And if they don't like the answer, they ask you
2 again?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Now, at the time, on Halloween, 2005, there was
5 nothing really special about that day, to you,
6 other than that it was Halloween, right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. I mean, you had plans to go trick or treating?
9 A. Mm-hmm.
10 Q. But no big deal about October 31, 2005, other
11 than that, right?
12 A. No.
13 Q. All right. It was another school day, was a
14 Monday?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Every day you get picked up by the bus at about
17 the same time in the morning, for school?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. In fact, probably like any other kid in high
20 school, you know just how long you can stall
21 before going out the door?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. All right. So you know that the bus comes
24 between 7:08 and 7:13 in the morning, right?
25 A. Yes.
85
1 Q. All right. And the school -- The bell letting
2 you out of school happens at the same time every
3 day?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. 3:05 in the afternoon?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. School bus is there?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Back -- Back in October, 2005, you had sort of a
10 nice female bus driver?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. She was the same bus driver every day?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And then every day she takes the same route home,
15 dropping kids off?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. So you know that -- you know, almost to the
18 minute, roughly, when you get off the bus every
19 day, right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You get off the bus every day with Brendan,
22 assuming he's not sick or something?
23 A. Yeah.
24 Q. Now, that's why you are really pretty sure that
25 you got off this bus at about 3:40, something
86
1 like that?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. On Halloween, 2005?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. You and Brendan walked down the road together and
6 you both go into your house?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. You remember, because you were asked just a week
9 later, that when you walked in, Bobby was home?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Bobby was sleeping.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Bobby was not out deer hunting?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. You and Brendan woke Bobby up?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. You remember doing that?
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. And then you kind of hung out and you were on the
20 computer until it was time to go trick or
21 treating?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Brendan was there?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. He stayed in the house playing video games?
87
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. The whole time you were there working on the
3 computer, he was playing video games?
4 A. Yeah.
5 Q. You guys have the computer and the video games in
6 the same room?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Bobby, at some point, left, or do you remember?
9 A. I'm not sure. I don't remember.
10 Q. Okay. But he wasn't out deer hunting; he was in
11 bed sleeping, when you got home?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now, you, then, go off trick or treating at, you
14 said 5:25 or 5:30, you thought, something like
15 that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. But before then, Brendan hasn't left to go get
18 mail for anybody?
19 A. No.
20 Q. You go trick or treating, Brendan does not go
21 with you?
22 A. No.
23 Q. So -- But when you went trick or treating, 5:25,
24 5:30, whatever it was; it's getting dark?
25 A. Yes.
88
1 Q. Or dark already?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. You are going into Two Rivers, I think?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. I'm pronouncing that wrong, I know. It's more
6 like Two Rivers?
7 A. Two Rivers.
8 Q. All right. And so you are walking all the way up
9 that driveway to where Carmen is going to pick
10 you up, where the bus turns around?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, whether it was when you were walking down
13 that driveway from the bus, or when you are
14 walking back up to get in the car with Carmen and
15 go trick or treating; did you hear any woman, any
16 young woman's voice screaming for her life?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Do you hear any gunshots?
19 A. No.
20 Q. If you had heard gunshots, or someone screaming
21 for their life, that's something you would
22 remember?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. All right. And one thing that the police asked
25 you over and over, if you did remember, is
89
1 whether you saw a fire that day?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Do you remember that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. They asked you that the first time they talked to
6 you on November 7, didn't they?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Which was the next Monday, right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And you told them there was no fire, you didn't
11 see a fire, that's what you told them on
12 November 7, isn't it?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Well --
15 ATTORNEY KRATZ: I will need to be heard
16 outside the presence of the jury, Judge.
17 THE COURT: All right. Members of the
18 jury, we'll take a short break at this time.
19 (Jury not present.)
20 ATTORNEY STRANG: We also should excuse the
21 witness.
22 THE COURT: You may be seated. And the
23 witness will be excused out in the hallway.
24 Mr. Kratz.
25 ATTORNEY KRATZ STRANG: This is at least the
25 ATTORNEY KRATZ: This is at least the
90
1 second time, and probably more than that, that a
2 witness in this case is going to be impeached with
3 somebody else's exhibit; that is, to be shown a
4 police report or an exhibit from somebody other than
5 the witness themselves, other than the declarant,
6 and that is hearsay.
7 If the attempt here is to refresh
8 recollection, then you can do that with the
9 witness' own statement. If the attempt is to
10 impeach the witness, then you can ask, did you
11 tell Investigator Fassbender, or whoever, such
12 and such. If they say no, then the procedure is
13 to call Investigator Fassbender to impeach, with
14 a prior inconsistent statement.
15 But using this procedure, to show a
16 witness a police report, a document that this
17 witness did not author and presumably has no
18 ability to determine its reliability or
19 authenticity, I think is improper. I have made
20 this objection before in this trial, Judge, and I
21 raise it again, because it appears that the same
22 procedure is being attempted at this time.
23 THE COURT: Mr. Strang.
24 ATTORNEY STRANG: Well, first of all, if I
25 understand the objection, the document I'm intending
91
1 to show him is an interview of Blaine Dassey. It is
2 not an interview of someone else. And I intend to
3 show it to him and ask him if that refreshes his
4 recollection.
5 If it does not refresh his recollection
6 about what he said, then I intend to ask him, and
7 I can read it verbatim, did you tell, you know,
8 two agents of the Division of Criminal
9 Investigation, on November 7, that there was not
10 any bonfire.
11 If he denies it and, you know, if at
12 first doesn't have his recollection refreshed and
13 then if he denies saying it, yes, you know,
14 eventually, I suppose, we would have to perfect
15 the impeachment by calling one of the reporting
16 agents or one of the agents present. But there
17 is nothing in the world wrong with showing this
18 to him to refresh his recollection, or ask him to
19 tell me whether the agent's got it wrong.
20 THE COURT: Mr. Kratz.
21 ATTORNEY KRATZ: I disagree, Judge. I
22 think he can be shown his statement. If there's a
23 written statement that this witness generated,
24 perfectly -- perfectly reasonable to show him his
25 own statement.
92
1 That happened with Ms Zipperer, show her
2 her statement, does that refresh your
3 recollection, she can say yes or no. But to show
4 a police report from a collateral source, from a
5 third party, and asking if this refreshes a
6 person's recollection, when they didn't create
7 it, is absolutely improper and is hearsay.
8 ATTORNEY STRANG: 906.12 allows the use of
9 anything that may refresh recollection. And
10 certainly a report of a law enforcement interview
11 with the very person falls well within the term of
12 anything.
13 THE COURT: Well, doesn't the first step
14 have to be to ask the witness if looking at the
15 document would refresh the witness' recollection.
16 ATTORNEY STRANG: I can do that, sure.
17 THE COURT: And what if he says no?
18 ATTORNEY STRANG: Well, then, I will --
19 then, I will ask him if he said it.
20 THE COURT: Do we know whether or not the
21 witness has ever seen this document before?
22 ATTORNEY STRANG: I have -- I have no idea.
23 Now, if Mr. Kratz is suggesting that there's a
24 handwritten statement from Blaine Dassey, then I
25 should look again.
93
1 ATTORNEY KRATZ: No, I said if there was,
2 he could use it as in Mrs. Zipperer's refreshing
3 recollection.
4 THE COURT: So there's not a statement of
5 this witness.
6 ATTORNEY KRATZ: That's correct. No
7 handwritten statement.
8 THE COURT: What is the State's authority
9 for the proposition that a witness' recollection can
10 only be refreshed by looking at a statement of the
11 witness, him or herself.
12 ATTORNEY STRANG: Well, 906.12 starts with,
13 if a witness uses a writing to refresh the memory
14 for the purpose of testifying, an adverse party is
15 entitled to have it produced at the hearing. That's
16 not what we're talking about here, Judge.
17 This witness hasn't said, there's some
18 writing that can refresh my recollection, there's
19 some business records, there's some document that
20 I know of that exists in the world that can
21 refresh my recollection. That's 906.12.
22 THE COURT: Maybe I'm missing something
23 here, but I'm not sure the parties disagree.
24 Mr. Strang asked the witness if looking at a police
25 report, a police interview with the witness, would
94
1 refresh the witness' recollection. The witness may
2 say yes or no.
3 It's possible the witness may remember
4 that somebody was taking notes and maybe looking
5 at the document would refresh the recollection,
6 in which case the document doesn't get introduced
7 as evidence, but the witness can look at it. If
8 the witness says, no, I don't think that would
9 refresh my recollection, then Mr. Strang doesn't
10 get to show it to the witness and moves on to the
11 next question.
12 ATTORNEY STRANG: Well, then we go to
13 906.13 and I ask him -- he gets an opportunity to
14 admit or deny that he made the statement, and then
15 impeachment would be perfected by calling someone
16 else who was present or heard it.
17 THE COURT: You mean you would call
18 Mr. Fassbender or someone else later?
19 ATTORNEY STRANG: It wasn't Mr. Fassbender,
20 but --
21 THE COURT: Whoever.
22 ATTORNEY STRANG: Right. Someone who was
23 present, one of the two authors of the report,
24 hopefully.
25 THE COURT: All right. Well, let's -- If
95
1 there is an objection to that, it's an objection for
2 a later time, I believe. All right. It seems to me
3 that Mr. Strang can ask the witness whether or not
4 reviewing the report, if he knows of its existence,
5 would refresh his recollection.
6 If it does, the witness can look at it.
7 Doesn't mean the report becomes evidence. If
8 not, then, Mr. Strang moves on to the next
9 question. Let's bring the jurors back in.
10 (Jury present.)
11 THE COURT: You may be seated. Mr. Strang,
12 you may proceed.
13 ATTORNEY STRANG: Thank you.
14 Q. (By Attorney Strang)~ Let's go back where we were
15 when we left off. Do you suppose that if you
16 looked at a police report from your November 7,
17 that first interview with some agents, that it
18 might help you remember today, what you told them
19 then?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. I have marked this with an exhibit number for
22 you; it's Exhibit 355. It's a DCI report. The
23 only page numbers here are ones that I have
24 added, but I'm going to show you the sixth page.
25 THE COURT: Mr. Strang, I'm going to ask
96
1 that you show Mr. Kratz which page you are going to
2 be looking at.
3 ATTORNEY STRANG: Sure. Absolutely. All
4 the pages are unnumbered, it's the sixth page of the
5 report. And specifically, counsel, I'm going to be
6 inviting him to look at the second paragraph on page
7 six.
8 Q. (By Attorney Strang)~ So now I will show it to
9 you. You can look at anything you want in here,
10 but I thought that that second paragraph right
11 there might help refresh your recollection. Now,
12 don't read it out loud, just read it to yourself
13 and see if that helps you remember. Is that any
14 help?
15 A. Yeah.
16 Q. Okay. Now, on Monday, November 7, 2005, when the
17 officers asked you --
18 THE COURT: Just a second, Mr. Strang, can
19 you pick up the document.
20 ATTORNEY STRANG: I would be happy to,
21 sure.
22 Q. So, Monday, November 7, Monday after Halloween,
23 when the officers asked you if there was any
24 bonfires last week, you told them there was not;
25 is that right?
97
1 A. Yeah.
2 Q. And you said you would know if there was a
3 bonfire because you always like to have bonfires.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Steve would have bonfires back in that burn area,
6 occasionally?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Didn't Steve have fires in his burn area once in
9 a while?
10 A. Which burn area?
11 Q. Behind the garage that you were telling Mr. Kratz
12 about?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Never any bonfires back there? No?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Just this one time?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Didn't Steve invite you later that week to bring
19 some friends over for a bonfire?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. But that never happened?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Your friends didn't want to come?
24 A. No.
25 Q. But Steve, when I say Steve, your Uncle Steve,
98
1 made the invitation to you to bring other kids,
2 other high school students over, right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Invitation that, had it been accepted, would have
5 had a bunch of kids standing around that burn
6 area?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Maybe poking around in the fire?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Or watching it for some hours?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And you didn't tell the police on November 7
13 anything about any fire in this burn barrel
14 either, did you?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Yes, you did tell them about a fire in the burn
17 barrel?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Do you think that would be in the report or maybe
20 they forgot that?
21 A. I don't know.
22 Q. Okay. You do remember eventually telling the
23 police about a fire in the burn barrel, right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Was that the second or third time they asked you?
100
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now, Mr. Dassey, around page four of that same
3 exhibit, 355, look at anything you like but,
4 again, the second paragraph on the page is the
5 one that I thought might help refresh your
6 recollection. Does that help?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. I will take it back from you, no cheat sheets.
9 Now that you have had a chance to refresh your
10 recollection about what you told the police, it's
11 true that they had asked you if anything happened
12 between 3:30 and 5 on that Halloween afternoon
13 and you said that nothing happened, right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And they asked you specifically if you saw Steve
16 during that time period and you said that you did
17 not?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And you also were asked if Steve had asked you to
20 help move this Suzuki or the snowmobile and you
21 said, no, he hadn't asked you to help move the
22 Suzuki or the snowmobile, right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And you told them that was something you would
25 remember if Steve had asked you?
103
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. The Cedar Ridge Restaurant?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Over in Maribel, near you?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay. Was your mom there for that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Just you and your mom?
9 A. Yup.
10 Q. And then a couple of officers or agents?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And did you guys sit across the table from the
13 agents, in the restaurant?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Did there come a time in that discussion between
16 you and your mom and the agents, when the agents
17 sort of got in your face a little bit?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. What were they doing to get in your face?
20 A. They were arguing.
21 Q. They were arguing?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. They raised their voices?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. They got angry?
104
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. They accused you guys of not accepting that Steve
3 was guilty, didn't they?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. They accused you of embarrassing yourselves by
6 believing in your uncle, didn't they?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. They tried to convince you that Steven Avery was
9 guilty, didn't they?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And they got loud about it, at the restaurant?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And then they stomped off and left you there,
14 when you wouldn't turn on your uncle, didn't
15 they?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And that was back in November 15 of 2005.
18 A. Yes.
19 ATTORNEY STRANG: That's all I have.
20
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
21 BY ATTORNEY KRATZ:
22 Q. Blaine, at that November 15 meeting, before they
23 stomped off, did they tell you to tell the truth?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Were they upset at you because they thought that
105
1 you weren't being honest with them and telling
2 the truth?
3 A. No.
4 Q. During that day, during the 15th, as Mr. Strang
5 has mentioned, do you recall telling the police
6 officers that, in fact, you did see your Uncle
7 Steven burning in his burn barrel, putting this
8 white plastic bag in there?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Do you recall at that same interview, telling
11 these same officers, that you saw a fire, a
12 bonfire the night of the 31st of October?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And is that the time that you identified that it
15 was your Uncle Steven, and Steven alone, that you
16 saw standing by the fire?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. How old were you at the time, Blaine?
19 A. 17.
20 Q. And as a 17 year old young boy, was there a lot
21 going on in your household at the time?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Was there a lot of pressure being put on you by
24 family members on what to say or what not to say?
25 A. No.
106
1 Q. Was there any pressure, or did you have any
2 concerns about your Uncle Steven at that time?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Do you recall telling investigators that you were
5 scared of your Uncle Steven, that's the word you
6 used, scared; do you remember saying that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Yes?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. What were you scared about with your Uncle
11 Steven; why were you afraid to tell the truth
12 about your Uncle Steven?
13 ATTORNEY STRANG: Object to the State's
14 testimony, argumentative.
15 ATTORNEY KRATZ: I can rephrase, Judge.
16 Q. (By Attorney Kratz)~ What were you scared about
17 with your Uncle Steven?
18 A. Because he used to boss us around.
19 Q. Who's us?
20 A. Me and my brothers.
21 Q. Were you afraid what your Uncle Steven might do
22 to you if you told the statement or testified
23 against him?
24 A. No.
25 Q. You were just generally scared of him?
107
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. All right, Blaine, that's all I have for you.
3 ATTORNEY KRATZ: Thank you, Judge.
4 THE COURT: Mr. Strang.
5
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
6 BY ATTORNEY STRANG:
7 Q. Well, Mr. Dassey, when you -- when you finally
8 told the police on November 15 that there was
9 this bonfire going and you saw it when you came
10 home from trick or treating?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. As Mr. Kratz said, you said you saw only one
13 person there?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. You went in your house?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And you told them, too, that you remembered
18 seeing Brendan and that you talked with Brendan
19 about trick or treating, in your house, when you
20 got home, didn't you?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And then you went to bed?
23 A. Yes.
24 ATTORNEY STRANG: That's all I have.
25 THE COURT: All right. This witness is
108
1 excused.
TIMELINE OF THE INTERROGATIONS OF BLAINE AND BRENDAN ON NOVEMBER 6TH:
ReplyDeleteSometime on November 5th - School bus driver Lisa Buchner tells police who are standing at a barrier on HWY 147 and County Road Q that she saw Teresa Halbach taking pictures by the mailboxes on Avery Road when she dropped off Blaine and Brendan at 3:40 PM on October 31st.
November 6th, 2:00 AM - Barb Janda is arrested for possession of marijuana. She gives detectives permission to question Blaine, who is at his boss's home in Manitowoc County.
November 6th, 10:11 AM - Two DCI agents go to Blaine's boss's home, where he is staying, to question him. His boss stays with him during the interview. Detective Wendy Baldwin and DCI agent Kim Skorlinski suggest to Barb Janda that his concern for Blaine could be perverted. [November 14th Interview of Barb Janda, Baldwin's report, page 265].
November 6th, 11:55 AM - Deputy Degnitz of Marinette County is directed to stop Steven Avery's 1993 Pontiac Grand Am, which had been parked at the Avery's cabin. They waited for Bryan and Brendan Dassey to drive the car off the property to issue the search warrant for the seizure of the Pontiac. Subsequent to the stop by Deputy Degnitz, the vehicle is towed and Brendan is separated from his brother and detained in a deputy's squad car, where they question him for about an hour.
November 6th, 12 noon - Lisa Buchner is called in to give a statement to Wiegert of Calumet County.
More on the timeline at:
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/4kwgdb/november_6_2005_timeline/
Barb Janda Tadych said that Scott Tadych and Bobby Dassey just said what the prosecution team told them to say. It's all rubbish that better fit the State's theory.
ReplyDeleteBarb's Documented Contact with Law Enforcement:
November 5, 2005 - At 5 p.m. Barb brings Blaine to Cedar Ridge restaurant to be questioned by DCI agent Skorlinksi and detective Baldwin. Report is not available online.
November 6, 2005 - At 2 a.m. Barb is arrested for possession of marijuana.
November 7, 2005 - DCI Skorlinski and CASO's Baldwin: Baldwin notes in her report that Barb has given them permission to question Blaine.
November 9, 2005 - DCI Kapitany interviews Barb while CASO's Tyson drives her to get fingerprinted, etc.: DCI report by Kapitany was not entered into evidence because Barb didn't testify, Scott did.
November 14, 2005 - DCI Skorlinski and CASO's Baldwin interview Barb: Baldwin notes prior contact with Barb but doesn't reference a report.
February 27, 2006 - DCI agent Fassbender interviews Barb while Wiegert interrogates Brendan. Wiegert wrote that Barb declined to sit in the interview room while Brendan was being questioned. After the interrogation, they bring Barb and Brendan to Fox Hills Resort to spend the night for their safety. "A room was secured at the Fox Hills Resort for Barbara and Brendan until interviews could be completed by the investigators."
March 1, 2006 - Barb gives Fassbender and Wiegert permission to question Brendan again. Barb does not sit in on the interrogation. They coerce a confession from him.
At 2 a.m. on November 6, 2005, less than a day after Pam Sturm found the RAV4 in Avery Salvage Yard and less than a day after police took control of the property, Barb Janda was taken into custody on a marijuana possession charge. From that point forward, Barb was at the disposal of law enforcement to make use of as they chose. [On February 8, 2006, she pleaded guilty, no contest, and the case was dismissed on the prosecutor's motion. The court official was Jerome Fox.]
https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=92079
"Dassey’s mother, Barbara Janda, agreed to the second interview but declined the offer to accompany Dassey. On March 1, again with Janda’s permission, officers retrieved Dassey from school for a videotaped interview."
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/4bgxm8/dasseys_mother_barbara_janda_agreed_to_the_second/
Wrongfully Convicted: Innocent Green Bay Cop Was Prosecuted by Felon, Joe Paulus
ReplyDeleteGreen Bay ex-cop, John Maloney was
wrongfully prosecuted by a Wisconsin DA
who later was convicted on federal corruption
and bribery charges. Maloney still is incarcerated
after 12 outside experts unequivocally said
there was no crime, and after former DA
Paulus admitted Paulus fixed 22 crimes and civil
violations for money in a blatant corruption of office.
John Maloney - Deplorable Lack of Evidence That Convicted and Imprisoned an Innocent Man for Life
Here's a quick overview taken from John Maloney's site.
Corrupt prosecutors and Wisconsin DoJ investigators tried to claim that a respected Green Bay police officer killed his wife by pouring a bottle of vodka in front of where his alcoholic wife (diagnosed at the Mayo Clinic with Arnold-Chiari Malformation (ACM)) who had a bad drug problem was found dead in 1998.
No evidence, no problem.
Not when the prosecution is corrupt and criminal—DoJ investigators Kim Skorlinski, Greg Eggum; and former Winnebago District Attorney and convicted felon, Joe Paulus (whereabouts unknown), and his former second chair, Vince Biskupic (resigned after misconduct), twisted facts through the trial alleging there was something evil at every turn in this rightwing community.
There was, in fact, no murder and no arson.
Mrs. Maloney died of an overdose of alcohol (and likely many of he drugs she favored) and the fire started when she dropped her lit cigarette (as she often did) into the sofa cushion as she lost consciousness.
John Zakowski was Brown County DA at the time Sandy Maloney died, and he appointed his good buddy and future felon, Joe Paulus, as special prosecutor.
Yeah, Joe Paulus, with his zealous commitment to truth, is unshakable.
Zaworski is now a Brown County judge who worked with Attorney General Van Hollen in 2011 on the expansion of the state's election fraud task force, a GOP obsession that claims massive felony crimes though not one case of in-person voter fraud has been prosecuted out of tens of millions of votes casts in Wisconsin.
It never occurred to these people—Paulus, Van Hollen, Biskupic, Zaworski, and DoJ former investigators, Skorlinski and Eggum—that convicting and incarcerating an innocent man is a crime, an imprecation against humanity.
Mayo Clinic diagnosed Arnold-Chiari Malformation (ACM) - See more at: http://john-maloney.org/background.htm#sthash.HdVclUl3.dpand wife was found dead.
Over a dozen outside experts unequivocally said there was no crime in the John Maloney case, but the trial and appellate attorney did not mention these facts.
"Flawed forensics may have played a part in the conviction of former Green Bay police officer John Maloney, who is serving a life sentence for the fatal 1998 fire that killed his estranged wife, Sandra. The state alleged Maloney, a fire investigator for the Green Bay Police Department, set the blaze by pouring vodka on the floor in front of the couch where his wife was found," notes Dee Hall, (Wisconsin State Journal; May 18, 2011)
Read the full article here:
http://malcontends.blogspot.com/2013/12/wrongfully-convicted-innocent-green-bay.html
[–]sleuthing_hobbyist 2 points 5 days ago
ReplyDeleteDo you know where the Nov 15th event is detailed?
I had always thought that the violent confrontation happened at dinner at Fox Hills.
[–]Canuck64[S] 6 points 4 days ago
I only know from Blaine's trial testimony that on November 15th[–]JJacks61 3 points 4 days ago
I think things were said there that they didn't want to say in a recorded interview at the station. Just my opinion.
My opinion as well. They interviewed him twice, THEN take them to Fox Hills for more "interviews". This was clear manipulation and deceit by LIEgert and FACTbender. There was never an issue of safety, there were no threats to them.
What transpired at the hotel? What did they say to Barb and Brendan, maybe even Blaine?
If everything was on the up and up, why wouldn't they just bring him back to the station? Fassbender was at both interviews.
Exactly. I know this issue was raised, but his lawyer should have raised hell about it. at a Mirabel restaurant investigators angerly yelled at him when he kept insisting the only time there barrel was burning was on Thursday night and that there was no fire behind the garage on Monday night.
I would like to know more about this violent confrontation Fassbender had at Fox Hills on February 27.
[–]7-pairs-of-panties 3 points 4 days ago
Wow! A violent confrontation by Fassbender? Towards the youngest? Why would BJ let these people around her boys? I just wonder if she didn't think she had a choice, or they made her think she had no choice. This family doesn't seem to understand their rights.
[–]Canuck64[S] 2 points 4 days ago*
The Appeal Brief does not say who he had it with at the Fox Hills Resort on February 27. Barb was by no means able to represent Brendan's interests. If you look at everything, the most incriminating pieces of evidence against Brendan originated from her and later solidified by Scott and Bobby. For example;
Brendan and Steve standing by a fire Monday night, when everybody else at that time said there was no fire Monday night.
The cleaning in the garage.
The bleach on the pants.
Facing the media and blaming Steve for getting Brendan involved in the assault and murder of TH. This alone would have convinced me of their guilt.
[–]woody94 3 points 5 days ago
Any idea why this Fox Hills interview isn't more prominent in Brendan's appeal? Seems like the lack of recording this should make the police appear to be behaving inappropriately.
[–]Canuck64[S] 3 points 5 days ago
It was included in the 2010 Appeal Brief, but there wasn't much to work with.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m9l06vyy9kv79hp/2011%20Dassey%20COA%20Brief%20(Dassey).pdf?dl=0_
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/5jznd2/report_from_the_feb_27_fox_hills_resort_interview/
UPDATES ON 2/25/2017
ReplyDeleteOther than the excerpts of testimony above, Blaine outright lied at Avery's trial (page 52). Blaine caved into pressure from Scott and Barb to change his story to match the State's narrative. Kratz wrote the script, which he rehearsed with Blaine prior to Avery's trial. Blaine followed Krtatz's script when he testified, but his performance wasn't flawless.
The following are Blaine's lies about October 31st during direction examination by Kratz.
1. The bus dropped him off at 3:40 (he originally said the bus drops him off between 3:30 and 4:00 p.m.).
2. He got home from trick-or-treating at 11 p.m. (he originally said he got home at 9:30 p.m.).
3. As he was walking from the bus stop to his home, at 3:46 or 3:47 p.m., he saw Steven bringing a plastic bag to his burning barrel (he originally said he didn't see Steven that day).
4. When Steven threw the plastic bag into barrel, there was smoke and flames coming out of the barrel (he originally said he didn't see Steven that day, he didn't see anyone using burn barrels that day, and burn barrels were used on November 3rd).
5. When he got home at 11 p.m. he saw one person, who he believed to be Steven, sitting and watching a bonfire with four to five foot flames behind his garage. (He orginally said that he got home at 9:30 p.m., and that when he got home he didn't see anyone outside; he also originally said he hadn't seen Steven that day and that there weren't any bonfires that day or that week.)
CONTINUED...
6. When he got home at 11 p.m. he went to bed in the bedroom he shared with Brendan, but Brendan wasn't in the bedroom (he originally said that when got home at 9:30 p.m., Barb, Brendan and Bobby were there, and then he went to bed by 10 p.m.).
ReplyDelete7. At 3:45 p.m. he saw the Suzuki parked on the "right side, outside of the garage" (he originally said that the for the last week or two, this Suzuki was parked on the side of Steven's garage closest to Blaine's house, meaning the inside of the garage).
8. Kratz, knowing that Blaine screwed up, used a diagram to have Blaine point out where the Suzuki was parked, and Kratz clarified for the jury that Blaine is "pointing to the outside of what would be Steven Avery's garage, just to the left side." (Fassbender twisted Blaine's words in his report of Strauss and Wilson's November 7th interview with Blaine, writing that "when asked where the Suzuki currently was located, Blaine said he thought it was still parked next to Steve's garage." However, Blaine hadn't said it was "parked next to Steve's garage;" he said it was "parked on the side of Steven's garage closest to Blaine's house.")
9. He also noticed a snowmobile outside, parked in "back of, behind the Suzuki." (He originally said Steven had towed the snowmobile from his grandpa's cabin about one week ago, October 30th, and that the snowmobile had been left on the trailer. He also said that as of the week of October 31st, he thought the snowmobile was still on the trailer.) Kratz stopped at this point to add the following:
Q. Now, I'm just asking you about your observations, Blaine, I don't know -- I don't care who you talked to, or what somebody might have said, but just what you saw with your own eyes, okay?
A. Okay.
Q. Do you remember seeing, with your own eyes, or remembering your own observations, whether or not that Suzuki and that snowmobile were moved somewhere else, at some point after the 31st of October?
A. I'm not sure, no.
Q. Okay. You just remember the 31st, that they were next to the garage; is that right?
A. Yes.
10. Because Blaine, when asked twice before about the burn barrel, didn't say, as he had rehearsed with Kratz, that he saw white smoke, which would be the color of smoke if plastic were burning, Kratz asked him a third time about the burn barrel:
Q. Now, can you describe for the jury the smoke or anything else that you saw coming out of that burn barrel when you got home that day?
ATTORNEY STRANG: Asked and answered, twice.
ATTORNEY KRATZ: I want him to describe, if he can, I want to know if he can describe the color, or if there were flames, or more descriptive of what he saw, Judge. That has not been answered.
ATTORNEY STRANG: It's been asked and answered, twice.
THE COURT: I know the question has been answered if there was something coming out of it. I don't remember if there was a request for a description, so I will allow the question.
Q. (By Attorney Kratz)~ If you remember, Blaine, do you remember anything coming out of that burn barrel?
A. Yeah, white smoke.
(Blaine originally said there weren't any fires in burn barrels that day.)
The flyover video from November 4th is blurred but there appears to be something between Avery's truck and his garage overhead door. That something could be the Skidoo snowmobile on the trailer he borrowed from Barb to haul the snowmobile from Crivitz to his home on October 30th. That snowmobile on the trailer would have been blocking the garage overhead door, preventing anyone from pushing the Suzuki outside the garage, as the state claims was done to make room for Teresa's RAV4 on October 31st.
ReplyDeleteP.S. Jane Cook, if you're ready this, I want you to know that Blogger, owned by Google, has disabled commenting on my blogs. I found a way around it but I don't have a way of letting you know without risking loosing that option. I miss your observations and feedback!
[–]Nexious 26 points 8 hours ago*
ReplyDeleteFrom Joshua Radandt's addidavit:
"I remember them asking me if I was sure that I saw what I said I saw. It seemed to me that they weren't satisfied with my statement about the fire. Specifically, it seemed to me that they wanted me to change my story to include a larger fire. Because they were reluctant to accept my story as true, I eventually asked them what they wanted me to say. They told me that all they wanted was the truth. I advised them that I had been telling the truth."
Sounds strikingly familiar to techniques used on multiple other parties including the Dassey family, to fit a particular narrative where the "truth" wasn't enough.
[–]thed0ngs0ng 14 points 8 hours ago
We already know the truth, we just need to hear it from you
[–]Zapfogldorf [score hidden] 18 minutes ago
Very familiar. It's the "just keep talking until you say what we want you to say. Until then, everything you say is wrong" technique of investigation. "Confirm what we 'know' is true and we'll leave. Don't confirm and we'll keep telling you that you must have seen something else, repeat our questions and wear you down like a child does with his mother at the grocery store begging for a lollipop" method.
"There was a big fire?" "No." "There was a big fire?" "No." "There was a big fire?" "No." "There was a big fire?" "No." "There was a big fire?" "No."
"Are you sure there wasn't a big fire?"
They always want the truth alright; their truth.
[–]7-pairs-of-panties 20 points 9 hours ago
JR is a crucial witness! What he shares is mindblowing in my opinion. What he shares shows that this does in fact go to the top, it's not just a few rogue investigators planting under the radar. They knowingly and willingly did this. I've always believed that but what JR states proves it for me. How many more people are out there that know important information that they didn't think much of at the time but now it all makes sense. I'll bet there a lots.
[–]JJacks61 12 points 7 hours ago
Or were told what to say like Brendan was. And clearly JR. We just want the truth. NO, not like that, like this. Yea, that's the truth now that we told you.
[–]Casablank10 17 points 7 hours ago
JR being encouraged to remember a larger fire is consistent with ST increasing the size of Steven's bonfire every time he was interviewed.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/6gxado/i_think_jr_solved_the_burn_barrel_switcheroo_for/?utm_content=title&utm_medium=new&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=TickTockManitowoc
Looking for clear image of Janda/Dassey burn barrels in original location (self.TickTockManitowoc)
ReplyDeletesubmitted 11 hours ago by seekingtruthforgood
Does anyone know whether there is a clear image of the Janda/Dassey back yard that shows the 4 burn barrels in their original location?
I have reviewed several images and aerial footage but found nothing.
With Blaine's map appearing altered (and from his interview with Baldwin on the 5th, not 7th as he stated during trial), I find it striking that I can not find any images of the Dassey/Janda back yard.
If anyone here has a clear image that shows 4 barrels in the backyard of the Janda/Dassey residence, I would greatly appreciate the link to the image.
[–]OpenMind4U 3 points 9 hours ago
No images/photos at situ of Barb's backyard with barrels, untouched/unmoved.
However, prosecution has used in-scale forensic MODELING approach in preparation for Trial. I used this 'modeling' a lot, especially for dimension purpose. I'm very much familiar with 'modeling' principles and know very well that such method is highly reliable if properly done. IMO, this case has pretty accurate 'modeling', dimension-wise. So, here is Modeling file. See page 38 - Barb's backyard with 4 barrels and their coordinates (let me know if you need an actual dimensions).
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Trial-Exhibits-90-and-122-Austin-Forensic-Mapping-PowerPoint.pdf
CONTINUED...
[–]seekingtruthforgood[S] 4 points 9 hours ago
ReplyDeleteI am copying an old post of mine from a couple of months ago - it explains the issues with the map and includes a link to the map. I would just add the link to the post, but, I can't honestly remember if that is allowed...
BaD, during his testimony during SA's trial, was questioned about his interviews with various law enforcement officers (links below.)
Strang questioned BaD about the dates, November 7 being the first date, followed by November 11 and 15, respectively. Additionally covered during his testimony was exhibit 355. That exhibit was the investigative report that memorialized his interview with two special agents from the DOJ AND included the map of the Avery grounds. Exhibit 355 was to have occurred on NOVEMBER 7.
Of course, there are problems with this testimony, as we now know from the CASO reports that BaD, in fact, first met with WB of Calumet and KS from DCI, on November 5, at approximately 5:00 PM, at the CR restaurant (Brady violation?) BJ joined BaD during that interview, which is also odd, being that we know BJ spent a good deal of her day being held in jail on November 5. From the CASO report, however, it seems that BJ was released from jail and promptly, with BaD in tow, and without counsel, met up with LE at a restaurant to provide statements. Maybe all normal, but, I were ever picked up on drug charges, the last place I would go is back to meet with LE, with my kid in tow, to give more statements, with no attorney present. But, aside from that...
As we look at the map purported to have been drawn on November 7, it's curious the date signed by BaD is November 8, not November 7. It is also curious, when looking at that map, the "8" seems to be a bit messy, like BaD wrote the wrong date first and was corrected... maybe someone pointed out that he had the date wrong and so he corrected it. But, let's think about that... "someone may have pointed out he had the wrong date and then he corrected it... to an "8", not a "7."" Weird huh, since one would think he would have corrected the date to a "7", not an "8"?
When considering that issue, one would have to go back to other documented dates during which BaD may have really drawn that map, because we all now know that he was initially interviewed on November 5, November 7, November 11 and November 15. But, the messy 8 can not be mistaken for an 11 or 15. However, when really studying the 8, it becomes very clear that a fairly distinct outline of a 5 can be seen - a 5 that matches, almost exactly, the other 5 used for the year.
Included below are links and images of his testimony with Strang, his interview with WB and KS on November 5 and various clean-ups of the altered date that help distinguish the "5", rather than the messy/altered "8."
Absolute personal observation only... but, just sayin'...
Exhibit 355: http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Trial-Exhibit-355-Blaine-Dassey-11-7-2005-Interview.pdf
November 5 CASO report with WB and KS: http://imgur.com/kkia4th
Exhibit 355 map: http://imgur.com/ePGHkDu
Various images of steps to clean up date shown on map:
http://imgur.com/Vx960Ld
http://imgur.com/8PNKHFa
http://imgur.com/Cmx5xr9
Final comparison of dates: http://imgur.com/GwRRFF6
Strang Interview of BaD from Trial: http://imgur.com/1D1Uuob
CONTINUED...
[–]OpenMind4U 2 points 9 hours ago
ReplyDeleteWOW!!!! Excellent, excellent work!!! THANK YOU!!!!...yes, if prosecution did NOT entered into Discovery (hided with intent) the information obtained on November 5 and such information could be favorable to defendant then yes, it's Brady.
(you can attach the link if your post was made on TTM)
[–]pife11 2 points 8 hours ago
Intersting stuff. So why is hiding the Nov 5th interview important? Obviously the vehicle would have been found already. Im confused as to why hiding the restaurant interview is important? What am I missing here.
[–]seekingtruthforgood[S] 2 points 7 hours ago
I'm not sure myself. A report taken from Blaine, with his mom present, on the 5th is documented in Baldwin's CASO supplemental report, but, it's not included with the case files. Also, Avery's defense attorneys indicated (during trial) that they thought the first interview with Blaine was November 7th.
Interesting is that I caught onto the map issue before I realized that Baldwin had interviewed Blaine on the 5th - meaning I had already cleaned up the doctored date and clearly saw the 5, not an 8. It wasn't until AFTER I cleaned up that date that I found the CASO reference from Baldwin confirming they interviewed Blaine on the 5th. I offer this because I was not trying to find the 5 under the 8 - it was very clear, on its own - the CASO report supports the alteration of the date, and, we can't really determine why the date of November 5th was hidden from Strang and Buting without seeing the related report that was not included with the case files - had either attorney seen that document and relevant portion of the CASO report, they would not have indicated Blaine's first interview was on the 7th...
[–]pife11 2 points 6 hours ago
Interesting. So at the bottom of the "cover page" image you posted above.. where it says "See Skorlinski report for details" ... that report has never been seen?
[–]seekingtruthforgood[S] 2 points 6 hours ago
Not that I have found... I've tried to find it but it doesn't appear to be on the site. Also, Strang and Buting were completely oblivious to Blaine's interview on the 5th. They thought he wasn't interviewed for the first time until Nov 7. And they were very specific about it when questioning him during trial so I know they never read the Nov 5 documentation.
[–]pife11 3 points 6 hours ago
im wondering if there was more damning statements in that interview. I mean. During trial, Strang already used the Nov 7th interview against Dassey when he claimed he had seen a fire. So he probably made several statements on the 5th that didn't help the States narrative.. thus. It got conveniently "lost."
[–]JLWhitaker [score hidden] 55 minutes ago
You might want to check through the discovery memos from Kratz to the defense to see if this report was provided. We don't have all the reports that were filed. There were thousands and thousands of report pages.
CONTINUED...
[–]dugdiggins 1 point 49 minutes ago
ReplyDeleteThank you for the detailed explanation with links! It helps clear up some things for me.
So the DCI report by KS that WB references on CASO page 282 was not entered into evidence at SA's trial. This is the Cedar Ridge Restaurant interrogation, the one where they screamed at Blaine for believing in his uncle's innocent. And this interview was on November 5th, not the 15th.
Strange references this during cross examination of Blaine as having occurred on November 15th, but according to WB's report it was the 5th.
Q. The Cedar Ridge Restaurant?
A. Yes.
Q. Over in Maribel, near you?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Was your mom there for that?
A. Yes.
Q. Just you and your mom?
A. Yup.
Q. And then a couple of officers or agents?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you guys sit across the table from the agents, in the restaurant?
A. Yes.
Q. Did there come a time in that discussion between you and your mom and the agents, when the agents sort of got in your face a little bit?
A. Yes.
Q. What were they doing to get in your face?
A. They were arguing.
Q. They were arguing?
A. Yes.
Q. They raised their voices?
A. Yes.
Q. They got angry?
A. Yes.
Q. They accused you guys of not accepting that Steve was guilty, didn't they?
A. Yes.
Q. They accused you of embarrassing yourselves by believing in your uncle, didn't they?
A. Yes.
Q. They tried to convince you that Steven Avery was guilty, didn't they?
A. Yes.
Q. And they got loud about it, at the restaurant?
A. Yes.
Q. And then they stomped off and left you there, when you wouldn't turn on your uncle, didn't they?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was back in November 15 of 2005.
A. Yes.
[–]seekingtruthforgood[S] [score hidden] 43 minutes ago
Hmmm... well, if that is the same interview, and it occurred on the 5th, not the 15th (Baldwin's report was written on the 6th, documenting the 5th), well, that's just really odd... thanks for this info.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/6ldo5g/looking_for_clear_image_of_jandadassey_burn/
[–]pife11
ReplyDeleteIntersting stuff. So why is hiding the Nov 5th interview important? Obviously the vehicle would have been found already. Im confused as to why hiding the restaurant interview is important? What am I missing here.
[–]seekingtruthforgood[S]
I'm not sure myself. A report taken from Blaine, with his mom present, on the 5th is documented in Baldwin's CASO supplemental report, but, it's not included with the case files. Also, Avery's defense attorneys indicated (during trial) that they thought the first interview with Blaine was November 7th.
Interesting is that I caught onto the map issue before I realized that Baldwin had interviewed Blaine on the 5th - meaning I had already cleaned up the doctored date and clearly saw the 5, not an 8. It wasn't until AFTER I cleaned up that date that I found the CASO reference from Baldwin confirming they interviewed Blaine on the 5th. I offer this because I was not trying to find the 5 under the 8 - it was very clear, on its own - the CASO report supports the alteration of the date, and, we can't really determine why the date of November 5th was hidden from Strang and Buting without seeing the related report that was not included with the case files - had either attorney seen that document and relevant portion of the CASO report, they would not have indicated Blaine's first interview was on the 7th...
[–]pife11
Interesting. So at the bottom of the "cover page" image you posted above.. where it says "See Skorlinski report for details" ... that report has never been seen?
[–]seekingtruthforgood[S]
Not that I have found... I've tried to find it but it doesn't appear to be on the site. Also, Strang and Buting were completely oblivious to Blaine's interview on the 5th. They thought he wasn't interviewed for the first time until Nov 7. And they were very specific about it when questioning him during trial so I know they never read the Nov 5 documentation.
[–]JLWhitaker
You might want to check through the discovery memos from Kratz to the defense to see if this report was provided. We don't have all the reports that were filed. There were thousands and thousands of report pages.
[–]seekingtruthforgood[S]
I skimmed but didn't see anything specific - good recommendation though - I will check again.
[–]pife11
im wondering if there was more damning statements in that interview. I mean. During trial, Strang already used the Nov 7th interview against Dassey when he claimed he had seen a fire. So he probably made several statements on the 5th that didn't help the States narrative.. thus. It got conveniently "lost."
[–]OpenMind4U
WOW!!!! Excellent, excellent work!!! THANK YOU!!!!...yes, if prosecution did NOT entered into Discovery (hided with intent) the information obtained on November 5 and such information could be favorable to defendant then yes, it's Brady.
(you can attach the link if your post was made on TTM)
[–]dugdiggins
So Strang and Buting didn't have the DCI report by KS of the November 5th interview, which is why they believed Blaine's first interview with investigators was on November 7th?
Does this mean the DCI report for November 5th is not in discovery? If this November 5th report was hidden from the defense, does Zellner know this. Should someone tweet her or email her, just in case?
The changing of the date on the map from November 5th to November 8th, a day that Blaine wasn't interviewed, is highly suspicious. It seems they wanted to include the map he drew on the 5th with their November 7th interview and report, but couldn't change the 5 to a 7, so made it an 8 instead.
Why hide the November 5th interview with DCI agent KS and CASO deputy WB? If this report truly was withheld from the defense, and if this report hurt the prosecution's case and could have helped the defense, it is a clear Brady violation.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/6ldo5g/looking_for_clear_image_of_jandadassey_burn/?sort=new
[–]SBRH33
ReplyDeleteNovember 5th- RAV4 is found at the ASY 10:25 am by POG... Barb is charged with possession... Brendan is in Crivitz with Ma/Pa Avery, Brian and Steve. At 5:00pm Barb agrees to bring Blaine to the Cedar Ridge Restaurant to meet with S/A Kim Skorlinski (DCI) and Inv. Wendy Baldwin for an "interview." The Cedar Ridge is minutes from the ASY. It is here that the detectives publicly shame Blaine for refusing to agree that Steve is involved with Halbach's disappearance. The interview is not recorded. This interaction is memorialized in Blaine's 2007 trial testimony.... Interstingly enough the defense thought the interaction had happened on November 15th ....Why?
We know it did not. It happened on November the 5th as you pointed out
http://imgur.com/kkia4th
Also it appears that Blaine had drawn a map of the property on November 5th while at the C&R meeting with Skorlinsli and Baldwin. This map focuses on the burn barrels. It seems one had been added (the heavily circled one in the Janda yard.) Why ask for those details if the bones have not been officially discovered yet.... they are discovered on the 8th
Exhibit 355 map: http://imgur.com/ePGHkDu
It appears to me that the (((5))) had been changed to an (((8))) to hide this fact. The fact that Skorlinski should not have been inquiring about detailed information regarding burn barrel placement on the 5th of November...... much too early.
The heavier circled barrels, the Janda barrel and the Avery barrel represent the barrels that alleged evidence were found in.
Bobby testified that he thought there were 3 barrels in their back yard. Ken Kratz was quick to correct him on the stand and had him state for the record that there were 4.
November 6th- Brian and Brendan are pulled over in Crivitz while driving Steves Blue Grand Am. The Grand Am has plenty of Steves known blood/DNA profile inside as found and documented by the WSCL. Brendan is isolated and interrogated by Inv. Wendy Baldwin and Det. O'Neill. S/A Kim Skorlinski is also present. Brendan is asked to draw a map of the property Steves Grand Am is towed away to the WSCL. Brendan has zero clue that Blaine was interviewed the day before.
On November the 6th it is alleged that Groffy, the WSCL photographer located and presumptively tested the RAV4 for human blood. The RAV4 was supposed to be in a locked condition, but Groffy testified it was unlocked when he arrived.
I find it interesting the timing of all of this. It is possible that Groffy didn't presumptively test anything in the RAV4 on the 6th. But claimed to have had to cover for the fact the Grand Am was a very rich source for blood DNA of Avery... The Grand Am could have been the plausible source all of this time. It was right there in the WSCL along with the RAV4 from the 6th onward.
Groffy's photographs lack time stamping. He could barely recall which RAV photos were taken from which day when testifying at trial.... lucky for him it wasn't too hard to sort it since very few photographs were taken to begin with.
He took exactly 4 photographs of the RAV4 on the 6th of November.... 4!
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/6ldo5g/looking_for_clear_image_of_jandadassey_burn
Brendan & Blaine (self.TickTockManitowoc)
ReplyDeletesubmitted 3 hours ago by iDLe76
In the latest motion I noticed the following inconsistencies.
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Supplement-to-Previously-Filed-Motion-for-Reconsideration_redacted.pdf
3.30 to 4pm Oct 31st.
Pg40
Brendan confirms that he got off the bus with Blaine and saw TH talking to SA as they approached their home. He saw SA return to his trailer and TH get into her vehicle but didn't see her leave. They both entered their home and Brendan confirms that his brother Bobby was not home at that time.
Pg42
Blaine confirms that he got off the bus with Brendan and they walked towards their home. He does not see anyone else on the property so no TH or SA at all. They head into their home together and he confirms that Bobby was sleeping in his bedroom. He was woken by them arriving home.
[–]What_a_Jem 4 points 3 hours ago
The truth would be, that they both arrived home around the time the bus driver claimed, which was between 3:30 and 3:40pm. Neither of them saw Teresa, because she had left by then. Bobby wasn't at home, because he had left to go hunting over an hour earlier.
Their initial statements tell most of the truth, which subsequently got twisted by the state to suit their invented narrative. Brendan was initially called a liar, even though he had told the truth. It was implied to Bobby (with information via Lenk), that Avery was saying that Bobby was the last person to see Teresa. Bobby then says he saw Teresa walking towards Avery's trailer, even though he had previously told his brother that Steve couldn't have killed her, because he saw her leave.
Unfortunately, the state were either incompetent and/or corrupt, which is why there is so much conflicting information around. To have received awards for their shit show, is really quite depressing.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/7bt36f/brendan_blaine/
[–]SBRH33[S]
ReplyDelete"What? On what evidence? So, you don't believe she saw any of those whose vehicles she photographed on Monday -- Schmitz or JoEllen Zipperer, or SA?"
I could be admonished for making a statement like this regarding the last people to see Halbach alive.... so allow me to unmask my thinking a little bit.
It is important to review trial testimony of those that claim to have interactions with Halbach on Monday October 31st 2005.
Sunday October 30th 2005- Ryan Hillegas and we have to assume Scott Bloedorn.
Monday October 31st 2005- Steven Schmitz, Joellen Zipperer, Bobby Dassey and Steve Avery.
The first three are the only people that testified to seeing an alive and breathing Teresa Halbach on October 31st 2005.
Steven Avery openly admitted to Investigators of the Auto Trader appointment and doing business with Halbach that day. However, Steve did not testify at his trial to this point.
But before I make any further declarations on the subject... a few words about Blaine's testimony.
First some background color on Blaine Dassey and his testimony.
Blaine Dassey
Blaines testimony is a great example of Kratz engineering or coaching his witnesses what to say on the Stand. Blaines testimony turns into a hot mess under Kratz direct. At one point Judge Willis senses Kratz's direct of Blaine unraveling before everyones eyes.... so Willis interjects and requests a 15 minute break/Recess right in the middle of Blaines testimony.... I guess that is one way to cool off the proceedings and give the Jury enough time to kinda forget about what they had just witnessed and heard. I highly recommend reading the Testimony of Blaine Dassey carefully.
Spoiler- Blaine like Bobby was going to be impeached by his own statements made before Kratz had a chance to engineer his testimony. Kratz was very aware of this and tries to stop Strang's Cross of Blaine using Blaines own original Interview to police. Another hot mess of testimony by Blaine ensues.... Poor kid.
It is important to remember the Blaine Dassey was Brendan's sole alibi on Oct 31st. He went to and from school with Brendan. Kratz went to great lengths to destroy Brendan's alibi by having Blaine falsely testify that he witnessed Steve Avery toss a plastic bag into the already flaming and smoking burning barrel by the driveway when he and Brendan were walking home from the school buss stop at 3:45pm. Blaine's testimony flies in the face of Brendan's original and also coerced account of that afternoon.
When you read his testimony several things reveal themselves. Blaine now testifies to a fire behind Steves house contradicting his previous statements to authorities. He states he saw one person standing by the fire, however he could not positively identify the person as being Steven Avery.
CONTINUED...
The important part of Blaines story though falls under his trick or treating adventure. Blaine testifies that his friend Jason's mom (Carmen?) drove him home after trick or treating at 11pm.
DeleteInstead of Carmen driving Blaine to his front doorstep at 11pm at night, Blaine states she dropped him off at the school buss stop a quarter mile from his actual house and he walked home from there. Geez some kind of mom huh?
This tiny illumination successfully removes Carmen (Jason's mom) from possibly having to testify at Steves trial. Of course one would have to assume that if she indeed drop off Blaine at his front door step that night she would have certainly witnessed the same fire in Steve's backyard at 11pm that Blaine was instructed to testify to......
It would have been a tough sell to ask Carmen to lie for the State about a fire that didn't exist. So they removed her from the scenario by keeping her far away from the target properties.
"It all makes sense when you look at it right... you gotta like stand back from it ya know." .
SGT Jeffery Rabin- The Usual Suspects.
Blaine's trial transcript is a great example of engineered testimony flying off the rails. After Ken Kratz loses his cool in episode 5 of MAM, when Bobby is caught perjuring his testimony Kratz in a moment of transparency admits on camera that he prepares his witnesses as he sees fit... meaning you will say what I want you to say while testifying. Kratz's touch is all over everyones trial testimony....... they all followed his script so to speak.
So lets talk about the last people to see Halbach alive and why I think some of them didn't see Halbach on the 31st as they testified to at trial.
I find it important to reread carefully and review a particular day of trial testimony. That day is Steven Schmitz Page 122 of the SACF - Day 2- 2007 Feb 13,
And it is important to review Joellen Zipperer's testimony as well.
Here we have two witnesses who describe Halbach's appearance and length of stay very similarly... in fact almost exactly. Beyond their word, the lack of any corroborating witnesses to the appointments... no one can be 100% certain that these people really did have an interaction with Halbach on the 31st.
Two people's word and not a whole lot of evidence to back those words up.
Looking at Schmitz's testimony some things pop out regarding Kratz's line of questioning regarding Halbach's clothing. I remind you that Schmitz's testimony takes place a year and a half later after his supposed interaction with Halbach, yet he can clearly remember precisely what she was wearing that day:
SHE HAD BLUE JEANS ON
Button up WHITE blouse
Spring Jacket, BLUE in color, waist length.
I believe Schmitz's testimony again was strictly engineered by Kratz. The sole purpose was to get on record that Halbach was wearing Blue Jeans that day. He was setting up the Jury for the Rivet allegedly found in the sifted ash.
Kratz: I dont expect you to know this Mr Schmitz, but I will ask it any way. DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT BRAND OF BLUE JEANS SHE WAS WEARING?
Schmitz: No.
CONTINUED...
But man does Kratz later connect that single Daisy Fuentes Rivit to Schmitz's and JoEllens testimony about Halbach wearing Blue Jeans..... more of an insinuation on his part but the Jury bought it wholesale. Oooof.
DeleteNow Schmitz claimed the transaction happened out in the driveway and but the car was stored in his shed... The transaction lasted 10-15 MINUTES.
She photographed a car stored in a SHED? Ooooof. Whatever.
The funny thing regarding this car is a photograph of it never turns up. You would figure Investigators would at least photographically document the car that Schmitz and Sippel "co-owned" and wanted to sell in Auto Trader.... you know when they went out to his house to ask questions about Halbach's visit and maybe take a look around? Well it appears they never paid Schmitz a visit.
Kratz tries to establish that Investigators did visit Schmitz. But it appears in Schmitz's testimony that they did nothing more than simply call him to confirm Halbach's visit.
(A missed opportunity for the defense to question Schmitz about the investigators visit?)
We will never know.
I have deep reservations about the Schmitz visit. I don't think it took place at all. Nothing can prove the visit outside of Schmitz's word. I cant accept that. Its too tidy.
Looking at Joellens testimony.... another hot mess in all sorts of manner. But I want to lock in on JoEllens description of what Halbach was wearing.
Wearing a dark jacket, waist length.
JEANS
Hiking boots, could have been shoes.
Now JoEllen has all sorts of problems remembering anything of certain exactitude. But she remembers acutely what Halbach was wearing and how long she stayed. 15 minutes.
How tidy is that? Her description of Halbach and length of her appointment pretty much mirrors that of Schmitz's....
Add to the fact the swirling circumstances surrounding the Zipperers in general. The nightly visit by LE, Georges odd behavior, Dedering's revamped statement from Joellen later on tweaking her original statement. The entire episode stinks.....
I believe the appointment was nixed since Teresa couldn't find the house. I find it troublesome that the original answering machine message has gone missing... and I am highly disappointed in how this important message was handled by trained Investigators.
And once again I am left with serious reservation that Halbach was ever at Zipperers at all.
IMO the Zipperers did not want to get involved with anything but, LE eventually had them come around to their point of view so to speak.
Its incredible that Dedering did not testify at Steve's trial and equally baffling that George wasn't placed on the "hot seat" for his testimony. Ooooof. ...Credit to Kratz for his slithery maneuvering.
Through this whole thing we are left with more murky questions than clear answers.
IMO... Halbach's entire day of October 31st was steered toward Avery by manipulation of witness statements and trial testimony. The day's timeline seems cleverly constructed on a wobbly foundation of half truths and pure fiction by investigators tethered closely to the case.... and finished off by complete manipulation by Kratz's gallery of ghouls in the courtroom.
One appointment certainly happened. And that was the Janda appointment that Steve oversaw. Whatever happened to Halbach after that nobody can say for certain.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/846ya1/a_return_to_kuss_road_the_red_trailer_and_the/