Thursday, October 26, 2017

An Audiovox Cell Phone Was Found Near the River in Mishicot, Close to Sightings of Teresa Halbach's RAV4 in a Turnaround on Highway 147


Across the street from 3405 Main Street/Highway 147 Jill J. Rhein saw a suspicious car on November 1, 2005 (this is near Ridge Road and a turnaround by the East Twin River in Mishicot).



On November 11th, 2005, Jill J. Rhein stopped at the command center at Avery Auto Salvage and told investigators that on November 1st she saw a suspicious car across the street from 3405 Main Street/Highway 147 in Mishicot.

Rhein's statement was noted in the Calumet County (CASO) log on page 79 (image below), but there was no follow up (no report by investigators in the CASO file).



Kathleen Zellner filed a new motion on October 23rd, 2017. In it she reveals a new witness, Kevin Rahmlow, who recently came forward with claims that he spotted Teresa Halbach's RAV4 on November 3rd and 4th, 2005, parked two days in a row in a turnaround on highway 147, near the old damn and bridge over the East Twin River in Mishicot.

On November 4th, Rahmlow saw a missing persons poster of Teresa and her RAV4 in the Cenex station in Mishicot and recognized the vehicle as being the one parked in the turnaround. He spotted a Manitowoc County sheriff's deputy at the Cenex station in Mishicot and told him about it. He didn't know the deputy's name, but when he watched Making a Murderer in December 2016, a year after its release, he recognized the deputy as Andy Colborn.

Confirmation of the poster being up at the Cenex station in Mishicot is in the dispatch calls (3:20 mark in the video below) -- the caller (Ryan Gilbert, Chief of the Mishicot PD) lists the posters at Cenex and channel 11 (Ryan Hillegas also mentioned at the trial that they faxed missing person posters to all the gas stations).



The following is a screen shot from the motion as it pertains to Kevin Rahmlow (who didn't know his information was important until he watched Making A Murderer in December 2016).




Kevin Rahmlow saw Teresa's RAV4 parked in a turnaround by the East Twin River on November 3rd and 4th, 2005 (image above was captured on December 31, 2004). This is the same area on highway 147 (Main Street) where Jill Rhein saw a suspicious car on November 1st. 

From the affidavit of Kevin Rahmlow, attached as Exhibit D to Zellner's October 23rd, 2017 motion:
"On November 3 and 4, 2005, I was in Mishicot. I saw Teresa Halbach's vehicle by the East Twin River dam in Mishicot at the turnabout [by] the bridge, as I drove west on Highway 147. Around midday on November 4, 2005, I stopped at the Cenex gas station at the intersection of Highway 147 and State Street in Mishicot. While there, I saw and read a missing person poster for Teresa Halbach. I remember that the poster had a picture of Teresa Halbach and written descriptions of Teresa Halbach and the car she was driving. I recognized the poster attached as Exhibit A to this affidavit as a copy of the one I saw at the Cenex station on November 4, 2005. I recognized that the written description of the vehicle on the poster matched the car I saw at the turnaround by the dam. 
"While I was in the Cenex station, a Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department officer came into the station. I immediately told the officer that I had seen a car that matched the description of the car on Teresa Halbach's missing person poster at the turnaround by the dam. In December 2016, I watched Making a Murderer. In the series, I recognized the officer who I talked to at the Cenex station on November 4, 2005. A photograph of this officer is attached as exhibit B to this affidavit. Having watched Making a Murderer, I now know that his name is Andy Colborn."

Mr. Tadych’s failure to respond to Kevin Rahmlow’s text about seeing the RAV4 at the turnaround by the old dam in November, 2005, before the discovery of the Halbach vehicle on the Avery property, is also suspicious. [Second Supplement to Previously Filed Motion for Reconsideration, November 16, 2017]





On December 12th and 19th, 2016, Rahmlow, who knew Scott Tadych through his brother, sent text messages to Scott about seeing the RAV4 in the turnaround and telling Colborn about it when he ran into him at the Cenex station on November 4th, 2005. Scott never acknowledged the messages.





Colborn testified that he was not scheduled to work on November 4th-6th, 2005: that these were the three days he was scheduled to be off ("he worked a six day on, three day off rotation," noon to 8:00 PM shift, and he was scheduled to be off November 4-6th).

On January 11th, 2007, Colborn was interviewed by CASO's Steier, who asked Colborn if he could recall what he had done on Friday, November 4th, one of his scheduled days off. Colborn told Steier he could not recall what he had done on the 4th.

Colborn feigned ignorance about what he did on November 4th because he didn't want it to be public record that he worked overtime on November 4th to assist with the Teresa Halbach missing person's case, just as he worked overtime on Saturday, November 5th and Sunday, November 6th.

The following is part of Colborn's testimony at Avery's trial:
Q. Sergeant, you hold the rank of sergeant?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in early November of 2005, did you hold that same rank?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What were your duties back in early November of  '05?
A. Essentially the same duties that I hold today. I was a patrol supervisor on -- I work a six day on, three day off rotation. So on the days that the lieutenant that's assigned to the shift is off, I would be the shift commander.
Q. So you have supervisory responsibilities as well?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I'm going to direct your attention to November 3rd of 2005, ask if you were employed on that evening?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recall what your duties were on November 3rd?
A. I was the shift commander for the noon to 8 shift, that's the shift I'm assigned to.
Q. Sometime during that shift, Sergeant Colborn, were you informed of a Calumet County missing persons investigation that was ongoing?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And being involved in that -- or excuse me, being aware of that investigation, were you asked to assist in any way?
A. Yes, sir.
[...]
Q. Did you do anything on the 3rd of November to further investigate Mr. Avery?
A. On November 3rd?
Q. Yes.
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever go back onto his property on the 3rd?
A. No, sir.
[...]
Q. After going to the Zipperers with Detective -- I think it was Remiker and Dedering, what did you do after that?
A. After we were done, completed at the Zipperers?
Q. Yes.
A. I went home. I was done with -- you know, I was already on overtime. I checked out and went home.
Q. Do you know about what time that was?
A. 10:30, 11:00 at night, maybe.
Q. All right.  Do you remember what you did the rest of that evening?
A. Just probably fell asleep on the couch.  I went to bed and, you know, fell asleep.
Q. The next day, on the forth of November, were you working that day?
A. No, sir, I was off that day.
Q. It's a Friday; is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember what you did on the 4th?  We'll get back to that, but do you recall, generally, your day on the 4th of November?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Move your attention one day further, on the 5th, Saturday, the 5th of November; do you recall what you were doing that day or that morning?
A. That was also a regularly scheduled day off for me. Yes, I recall what I did on that day.
Q. We'll get into the morning, but let me just jump right to this investigation.Were you contacted at all by any supervisors or superiors that day and asked to participate in this case?
A. I was contacted by the noon to 8 shift commander for that day, and he did ask me to come into work and pick up a patrol vehicle and respond out to the Avery Salvage Yard.
Q. Did you do that?
A. Yes.
Q. In a marked vehicle?
A. Yes, I did take a marked vehicle out there.
Q. And about what time was it that you arrived at the Avery scene itself; do you recall?
A. I know I left my house between 4:00 and 4:30. I probably got out to the Avery Salvage Yard between 5:15, 5:30 maybe.
Q. To your best recollection?
A. Yes.
[...]
Q. The next day, that is, on the 6th of November, were you asked to come back to the scene?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what were you asked to do on the 6th?
A. On the 6th, when I came out there, again, with Detective Remiker and Lieutenant Lenk and I believe just -- this time just Lieutenant Lenk went into the Command Post to make contact with who we would be working with with Cal County that day. And Detective Remiker and I just kind of waited until he came back out. And we were introduced to Deputy Kucharski. And then Deputy Kucharski informed us what our assignment would be for that day.


The image above shows the turnaround at the East Twin River, 590 yards east of Scott Tadych's trailer, where Kevin Rahmlow saw Teresa's RAV4 on November 3rd and 4th, 2005 (the image was captured in October 2008) -- Rahmlow told Andy Colborn about this on November 4th, 2005, when he saw Colborn at the Cenex gas station in Mishicot (Colborn didn't file a report about it).

Near this turnaround is also were a cell phone was found -- Andy Colborn and James Lenk were with CASO deputy Craig Wendling when this cell phone was collected into evidence on November 9th, 2005.



In his report of activity for November 9th (page 185 of CASO's investigative file), CASO deputy Craig Wendling noted that MTSO deputies James Lenk and Andy Colborn were with him when he collected into evidence (tag no. 8451) an Audiovox phone, silver in color, Model CDM8815UT STAR CAM.

Wendling noted that Colborn did all the photography for him, but he collected the phone and kept it in his possesssion.

Wendling mentioned John Campion in his report but not Pam Sturm.

John J. Campion, owner of Chiller's Bar & Grill, who was searching with former private investigator Pam Sturm (jury trial day 2, page 234), actually found the cell phone (Pam testified that she couldn't recall the day that it was found).

Campion found the phone just east of Ridge Road, on highway 147, in the north ditch, along the gravel line.

This is near the sighting by Jill Rhein of a suspicious vehicle across the street from 3405 Main Street/Highway 147 in Michicot on November 1, 2005.

Did they check the number for this phone? Was it a disposable phone?



Pam Sturm (and Sheriff Pagel's cousin by marriage) found business papers along the East Twin River in Mishicot; however, she testified she didn't recall any such papers. She testified instead to finding the Audiovox cell phone that Champion found and turning it over to a sheriff's deputy in uniform. She testified she wasn't sure who the deputy was, and she never gave a name when cross examined.

Out of the presence of the jury, the judge asked Buting, "How did you know how to ask the questions about it?" (the cell phone and business papers found near the river in Mishicot). Buting explained: "We get tips too, just like they do (the prosecution). Sometimes useless, sometimes not. This one sounded like maybe it might be more legitimate, so I thought I would ask her about it. But I had no confirmation of it, until today." Wiegert claimed to know nothing about the police action taken.

When Buting asked her what day she found the phone, she couldn't recall. She said it was after November 5th, the day she found the RAV4 at Avery's Salvage Yard. She first testified that it was Sunday, Monday or Tuesday, but then later changed her story and said, "No, I don't think I worked on the 6th. I think I had off on Monday or Tuesday and I went back to help out." When asked what she did after the deputy took possession of the cell phone, she testified that "we met up with the search party again."

Pam testified that it was found by the river about 1/4 mile outside of Mishicot by a "turnaround."

During Avery's trial, the defense team received a tip from the public about the phone and business papers being found near the turnaround (the prosecution must not have turned over to the defense a copy of Craig Wendling's report or the defense team overlooked it in the discovery materials).



Robert Fabian, Earl Avery's brother-in-law, told CASO investigators that around 8:00 a.m. on November 3rd "he observed a green jeep backed all the way up at a parking area on highway 147 by the river." Investigators noted that "Robert described this area as a turnaround" and that "Robert recalls seeing this jeep at 8:00 a.m. because he had seen a male subject talking on TV about a green jeep being in the area" (page 320).

NOTE: It was (and maybe still is) typical for people in the area to refer to SUVs as "jeeps" (Brendan, Fabian, Siebert); therefore, when a witness says "jeep" he could be referring, in general, to any SUV.



Ervin Koehnke would have been the "male subject" Fabian had seen on TV. Koehnke was interviewed by a local television station and he stated that on the morning of November 3rd, 2005, he saw Teresa's RAV4 in a turnaround on highway 147 east of I-43 (page 221).



On or about January 21st, 2006, Ervin Koehnke called MTSO dispatch, and his contact information was passed onto CASO's Dedering ("as he does not have long distance service"). Dedering wrote (CASO page 353) that Koehnke said he saw "a unit parked in the turnaround in Mishicot, just west of town, on November 4th." He said the vehicle was parking facing east and that he observed a large hole in the windshield as well a a large hole in the driver's side window. Dedering wrote that Koehnke said "the one on television wasn't the same color" (the RAV4 in evidence, which looked green or blue, depending on lighting, doesn't have a large hole in the windshield or driver's side window). According to Dedering's report, "Koehnke further indicated the vehicle shown on television as a result of the preliminary hearing on 12/06/05 did not seem to be the same unit."

According to reddit user Ghwoodall: "Koehnke made that last comment about the vehicle not being the same unit because LE convinced him it wasn't the right one. In the MTSO dispatch calls, there are two guys who call in, and the one older man is upset that the press is asking him questions, and he's saying, "But I didn't know," and they transfer his call to Gary Steier to calm him down. It just so happens that the man who called has passed away, but the guy with him, who is upset, is still alive. He was told by LE that he saw the wrong RAV4. I've spoken with a friend of his, and since the man isn't on social media, I asked his friend to please contact Zellner because this man also saw Andy Colborn with the RAV4 that he saw. Funny, Colborn never made a report about the RAV4, yet he was spotted with it."

Avery's neighbor on Jambo Creek Road, Wilmer Siebert, said he saw a vehicle matching the color, style and size of Teresa Halbach’s Toyota RAV4 driving into the back of Avery’s Auto Salvage via quarry roads days before Pam Sturm found it abandoned in the salvage yard on November 5th, 2005. Sibert saw an older model white jeep with paint chipping off the hood closely following the RAV4 down the access roads into the gravel pits. A short time after seeing the two vehicles enter the gravel pits, he saw the white jeep exit the gravel pits, again using the same access roads just south of his house on Jambo Creek Road.


Above are images captured by Google Maps in September 2009 of Andy Colborn's driveway, and in his driveway is a 1999 white Isuzu Rodeo (SUV).

Attached as an exhibit to Kathleen Zellner's post-conviction petition filed on June 7th, 2017 is an affidavit from Siebert signed on March 23, 2017.



Paul Metz, a farmer whose cattle are located at the intersection of Jambo Creek Road and Zander Road, was interviewed by CASO detective Dedering.

Attached as an exhibit to Kathleen Zellner's post-conviction petition filed on June 7th, 2017 is an affidavit from Paul Metz, dated April 21, 2017. He says that law enforcement misrepresented his statements in their report. The following is from Metz's affidavit (PC exhibit 99):
"Around dusk on October 31, 2005, I heard a loud buzzing sound that reminded me of electrical wires pulsating. I then smelled what I thought was insulation burning. I initially thought that the high-power tension wires that run just south of my property were overloading, causing the buzzing sound and the bad odor. I did not confuse the smell with that of a burning body. I know what a burning body smells like from my time as a volunteer firefighter. I was interviewed by officers from the Manitowoc County Sheriff s Department ("MCSD"). I did not initiate contact with MCSD and I do not know how MCSD learned about this incident. During the interview, I would not have describe the sound I had heard as a 'whoosh.' Rather, it was a buzzing sound. I did not tell officers from MCSD that the sound reminded me of instances when I poured gasoline or other highly volatile substances on a fire. I did not tell anyone that I thought the smell was coming from the south or from the vicinity of the Avery property off of Highway 147."


Two people who lived on or near Twin Bridge Road in Mischicot contacted the sheriff's office to report a suspicious van parked for three consecutive days at Kruger Road and Twin Bridge Road, an area about two miles north of Avery Auto Salvage. The car was parked there during the day but was always gone in the evening. This was early in the week that Teresa went missing. The one witness described it as a black, four-door van. She also said that, during the first part of the week that Teresa went missing, her dog outside in the pen barked for a solid 20 minutes and she was unable to settle it down.



At 24:30 in the calls to Manitowoc County dispatch, turkey hunters at the Richard Drum Forest and the West Twin River bridge on highway 147 saw a dark or green-colored truck and a guy in waders in the trails below the bridge on Thursday, November 3rd [Scott Tadych drove a green Ford Ranger with a cap at the time]. The hunters felt it was important enough to call the sheriff about what they saw. Whatever the turkey hunters saw was more than just a guy in waders and a truck. They're outdoor sportsman, and they know what is normal and what is not when it comes to hunting and fishing. It was something out of the ordinary that prompted them to take the time to call the sheriff about it. The call was forwarded to Calumet County. [Several people, including Steven, referred to the RAV4 as a truck or jeep at times (rather than calling it a SUV), so it's possible the turkey hunters saw the RAV4 and just called it a truck when reporting it (Teresa's RAV4 looked blue in photographs but looked green in person to most people).]

Just southwest of the West Twin River bridge on highway 147 in Maribel there is a hunting cabin with what looks like a cooker at 7507-7549 W. Main Street (image below). The cooker is used to cook wild game, such as deer and bear, at high temperatures. The secluded cabin with the cooker is only 200 meters south of the bridge and is probably less than a five-minute walk.




Friday, October 20, 2017

Is It Rachel Haggs or Rachel Haag? Did She Lie About Her Name, Among Other Things? (You Can't Trust the CASO Reports)


CASO investigator John Dedering, far right, behind Steven Avery

CASO DETECTIVE DEDERING'S REPORT OF CONTACT WITH RACHEL ON NOVEMBER 4, 2005

The following is investigator John Dedering's report of his phone conversation with Rachel of AutoTrader after she called the Calumet County Sheriff's Office (CASO) about a rumor she overhead.

Page 38

TYPE OF ACTIVITY: Contact with Rachel J. Haggs
DATE OF ACTIVITY: 11/04/05
REPORTING OFFICER: Inv. John Dedering
DOCUMENTS GENERATED: None

On Friday, 11/04/05 at 1100 hrs., Captain PAUL RUSCH brought me information regarding a phone call he had taken from RACHEL HAGGS who was employed with AUTO TRADER. I did call the phone number for AUTO TRADER (414-425-8675) and did speak with the following individual: 

RACHEL J. HAGGS
DOB 11/24/85
190 W. Allerton Ave.
Milwaukee, WI 53207
Cell No. 262-391-2074

Ms. HAGGS advised me that someone named DAWN who works at AUTO TRADER stated she had overheard that STEVEN AVERY had called on yesterday's date (11/03/05) between 4:30 and 5:00 p.m. approximately, because STEVEN needed to reschedule the appointment with the photographer. STEVEN indicated that the photographer had not made the scheduled meeting on Monday, 10/31/05.

According to RACHEL, STEVEN indicated that the photographer (TERESA HALBACH) had called and indicated that she could not make the Monday appointment.

According to RACHEL, there is a record for an appointment with JANDA on the 31st of October. RACHEL went on to indicate that STEVEN stated TERESA had contacted him on Monday about this matter.

RACHEL indicated that a subject named SCOTT had called STEVEN regarding TERESA HALBACH and, apparently, was under the impression STEVEN was not happy about "being accused of stuff."

RACHEL went on to indicate that she had learned STEVEN AVERY had made inappropriate comments to TERESA in the past and further had come out of the house on a previous occasion wearing only a towel.

Investigation continues.

DCI AGENT MCGRATH'S REPORT OF CONTACT WITH RACHEL ON DECEMBER 1, 2005

The following excerpt is from an attachment to Kathleen Zellner's PCR petition. It is a report of DCI agent Neil McGrath's interview with Rachel of Auto Trader Magazine on December 1, 2005.

On Thursday 12/01/2005, Special Agent McGrath went to the Auto Trader Magazine office located at Hales Corners. S/A McGrath had previously arranged an appointment with Office Manager Angie Schuster. S/A McGrath arrived at Auto Trader at approximately 3:45 p.m.

Upon arriving at the Auto Trader Magazine office S/A McGrath interviewed Rachel [blacked out]. Rachel stated that she had been working at Auto Trader magazine for approximately six to seven months and was a Production/Customer Service Representative. Rachel recalled speaking with an individual who identified himself as Steve Avery on approximately Thursday 11/03/2005. Rachel stated that earlier on that same day Teresa Halbach's mother had contacted the Auto Trader Magazine office and was concerned about Halbach's whereabouts. Avery called the office approximately two hours after Halbach's mother, possibly between 3:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. Avery told Rachel that he had an appointment of a van and a truck to be photographed on 10/31/2005, however he had contacted Halbach on that day to see if she was still coming and she told him that she was heading in a different direction. Avery told Rachel that Halbach instructed him to contact the office to reschedule the appointment. Avery also told Rachel that he had been contacted by a male individual who identified himself as Teresa Halbach's roommate. This individual told Avery that he knew Halbach had been to his residence to take photographs and that they believed Avery had done something to Halbach. Avery stated that he did not appreciate being accused by this person. Avery had the number of this individual on caller I.D. and told Rachel he would call her back with this number. Avery stated that he did not appreciate being accused by this person. Rachel stated she looked on the computer and did not see a record of Steven Avery having an appointment and stated that she would look into it.

Approximately five to ten minutes later, Avery re-contacted Rachel at Auto Trader Magazine and gave her the number of the individual who had called. Rachel state that she wrote the number down on a Post-It note and contacted Calumet county at a later time asking for the person in charge of the Teresa Halbach investigation. This individual had to call Rachel back because the individual was on the phone at the time. Rachel stated she gave the investigator who called her the information about Avery calling her.

Rachel stated this contact was the first she believed she spoke with Steve Avery on the phone. Rachel is aware who Steven Avery was because Halbach had mentioned to Rachel on the telephone that Avery was "creey." Halbach had told Rachel that on at least two occasions when Halbach arrived at the Avery property to shoot photographs of vehicles, Avery came out of his residence dressed only in a bath towel. Halbach joked with Rachel that Avery was not the type of person you wanted to see dressed in only a towel. Halbach had also mentioned to Rachel that Avery had showed her some kind of display having to do with females that was posted on his wall. This display was of pictures or names and phone numbers of females, possibly Avery's girlfriends. Avery said to Halbach in a confident manner that some day she would be up on the wall as well. Rachel did not believe Halbach was alarmed by this comment, however thought it was strange. Rachel did not get the indication that Halbach viewed Avery as more of a harmless old man who was "a little out there." Rachel has only spoken with Halbach by telephone and had never met her in person, however, felt she knew Halbach well from frequent conversations. 

FORMER AUTOTRADER EMPLOYEE RACHEL'S STORIES

Why did Rachel's story change on December 1st, nearly a month after she contacted the Calumet County Sheriff's Office (CASO)?

In her initial interview with Dedering (when Rachel called CASO to report on rumors she had heard), Rachel said she was told about a phone call that Dawn overheard. A month later, she told McGrath that she was the person who took the call. She went from spreading gossip to being a witness.

Dawn didn't mention anything about overhearing this call earlier in the day when Wiegert interviewed her by phone on the evening of November 3 (CASO page 20). If Avery had called earlier that day, she would have told Wiegert.

The first story by Rachel sounds like gossip; the second sounds like she wants to get involved with the trial.

Basically, there are two problems with Rachel's stories (other than the fact she told two versions of the same story), which is probably why Rachel's statements were not used at trial. There is the obvious hearsay -- she is reporting what someone else said they overheard. Then there is the fact it is a phone call. If the person taking the call recognized it as Avery's voice, perhaps it would be admissible. But if the person is not familiar with Avery's voice and could not identify the voice on the phone as such, then it would be inadmissible because the witness cannot say for sure it was Avery who called.

If Avery had made the call, special prosecutor Ken Kratz would have presented evidence of this at trial, but he didn't.

Avery did not call AutoTrader on November 3, 2005, according to his phone records.

In Zellner's The Steven Avery Proof of Guilt Challenge, she said: "Scott Bloedorn called Steven Speckman (the "Steve in Sheboygan on Teresa's day planner for 10/31), not Steven Avery, on 11/3 at 4:10 p.m." (Zellner also said in The Steven Avery Proof of Guilt Challenge that Teresa had appointments in Sheboygan on the morning of 10/31).

Additionally, according to Zellner: "Steven Avery never spoke with Teresa's roommate, Scott Bloedorn, on November 3, 2005 or any other day. Law enforcement investigated these allegations and determined they were false."

Rachel was not called to testify, so it must have been clear to the prosecution that they could not use her statements. It was also clear to the prosecution that whoever called AutoTrader on November 3 to complain about Scott Bloedorn would be very important to their investigation, and law enforcement knew this because they questioned George Zipperer about this phone call.

Rachel's statements are inadmissible as hearsay but in the court of public opinion reports of this call would go a long way toward convincing people that Avery is guilty.

In books written by Michael Greisbach and Ken Kratz, they perpetuated the lie started by Rachel that Steven Avery called AutoTrader on November 3 and said Teresa Halbach never made it to Avery Auto Salvage on October 31, 2005.

In Greisbach's book he wrote: "On November 3, Avery called Auto Trader and told them that the photographer had not made the scheduled appointment at the salvage yard on October 31. He said Halbach notified him by phone that she wouldn't be able to make it after all."

On page 163 of Kratz's book he wrote: "Steven (Avery) tells Scott Bloedorn, Teresa's roommate, that Teresa 'never showed up' for her appointment on Oct. 31 and is upset that he was even contacted in connection with the disappearance."

Kathleen Zellner, Avery's post-conviction counsel, identified 13 falsehoods in Kratz's book. She told Patch in July 2011: "We're consulting with defamation experts about the viability of a legal claim against Kratz. He has no absolute immunity. This guy is off the case, and he's still running around committing defamation against Steven Avery, essentially trying him in the press with even more false evidence, which is what he did the first time with his false (2006 pre-trial) press conference statements."
IS FORMER AUTOTRADER EMPLOYEE RACHEL'S NAME ACTUALLY RACHEL ANN HAAG AND NOT RACHEL J. HAGGS?

There are no public records for a Rachel Haggs or a Rachel Hagg but there are public records for four people named Rachel Haag in Wisconsin. Rachel K. Haag (34 years old), Rachel Ann Haag (38 years old, born 1/1/1979), Rachel R. Hagg (38 years old), and Rachel Marie Haag (60 years old).

None of the four people named Rachel Haag in Wisconsin were born in 1985 (Dedering reported Rachel's birth date as 11/24/1985, which would make her 32 years old as of October 2017).



INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS

The following is McGrath's DCI report for his November 6, 2005 activity. It is an example of proper official documentation of an investigation, unlike the reports that were filed by CASO. However, it should be noted that the report was edited by McGrath's supervisor on November 30, 2005, just before it was turned over to Fassbender and received into evidence by Ken Kratz.



The suspicion is that investigative reports were falsified to fit the narrative.

Why does the big file of CASO investigative reports look like somebody copied all the reports into a Word document?

If all the CASO reports were copied into one big Word document, what would have prevented someone from editing the file to change one or more of the reports?

Shouldn't each CASO report have the date the report was written and the date the report was last edited (and by whom), like the DCI reports?

None of the CASO reports include the date they were prepared, only the "date of activity" that they are reporting on. It would be helpful to know how much time had elapsed between the event or activity and the date the report was written (there really should be an audit trail for LE report writing).

Were all the deputies/detectives/investigators with CASO told to copy their reports onto CD so that they could be given to Kratz in electronic format? Did Kratz then copy and paste the reports into a Word file and edit them to fit his narrative?

Who would have stopped Kratz from doing this? He had prosecutorial immunity. He had free rein.

From Kratz's email dated November 9, 2009 to Potter regarding Kratz's sex scandal:
"I further assume that you would be too 'embarrassed' by my continued involvement in assisting DOJ in the Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey post-conviction matters -- I want to hear you ask me to step aside from those duties as well, and make sure that Roy is ready to appoint additional resources to assist Tom Fallon in the conclusion of this mamouth prosecution."
MnAtty wrote at TickTockManitowoc:

I think I have figured out where much of this confusion comes from. What it comes down to, is people don't listen.

I've always had a knack for language. When somebody's scribbles at the office are unreadable, they bring it to me. I also hear really well, like when someone has a foreign accent or other speaking problem.

Many months back, I listened to a recording of Steven Avery being interviewed, and this is where he supposedly denied there was a fire. However, I listened to the entire interview, and I didn't misunderstand Avery at all. He did not lie about anything.

There are a couple of complicating factors. First, these Keystone Cops keep using the same technique of trying to introduce confusion into the conversation. Their intended goal is to trip the interviewee up. Instead though, when you listen back to the interviewer, they are jumping all over the place and making the conversation very mixed up.

I think this may even be a lazy version of doing their job. They just make the conversation as confusing as possible, and then later make assertions about what was said that are entirely inaccurate. Instead of getting legitimate admissions, they just assert in their report later that such admissions occurred.

And this system seemed to work pretty well. Records created in the regular course of business always have a particularly high value as evidence. These Sheriff's employees used their records as a new layer of proof of what was said, and most people then just take their word for it. However, when you go back to the original interviews, the investigators' claims just don't pan out.

You're almost better off staying out of discussions with people intent on believing SA is guilty. They have embraced these second-hand records as gospel, and you're never going to convince them otherwise. They have zero competence themselves as police investigators because they're actually just people trying to learn about a case using the Internet. At least I have some actual experience with this kind of work, so I understand more of what's going on. But you're never going to win an argument with someone who has become so obtuse about the facts and who has developed such an inflated opinion of their own expertise.

Luckily, people don't go to jail based on third-hand gossip. Of course, in SA's case, much of it isn't much better than third-hand gossip. He really got a raw deal.

I watched that Star Trek episode recently, where the line comes up, "evil seeks to maintain power by suppressing the truth or by misleading the innocent." It made me think of guilters. You have a main group that know they're lying, and maybe a subgroup of followers who either don't have the time or don't have the ability to think for themselves.

CaseFilesReviewer wrote at TickTockManitowoc:

The CASO report is the result of a pre-trial conference with MTSO on June 26, 2006 (MTSO report, page 16). 

In other words, the CASO reports are prepped, so I don't bother with them much.

Colborn wrote his 11/3/2005 report of activity on 6/29/2006, after the pre-trial conference with CASO.

The contents of the George Zipperer voicemail were reported in the MTSO reports for 11/3/2005, long before the CASO revision as result of the pre-trial conference on 6/29/06, which resulted in a different version in CASO.

The police seemed to have changed their “narrative” as result of the 6/29/06 pre-trial meeting (MTSO Summary Report, page 16 of 17, paragraph 17). 

It was reported on 11/03/05 that the message Teresa left at Zipperer’s was seeking directions (page 4 of 17, paragraph 6). On 11/5/05 the detectives discussed amongst themselves that Teresa went from Steven Schmitz's to Steven Avery's (audio at 2:05). Yet, in the CASO report, which seems to have been created as result of the pre-trial meeting, a different message detail was reported (page 18 paragraph 5). Additionally, it was reported that the 2:27 call was the last phone activity when in reality it was the 2:41 call (page 3 paragraph 2). It was reported that the call with Schmitz was at approximately 1:10 when in reality it was ten to one or 12:51 (page 6 paragraph 3). Andy Colborn seemed to slip with his “2:00 or 2:30” (TT D7/P76/L18-20): I suspect he meant to say “3:00” to match his 6/29/06 reporting of his 11/3/05 activity (page 17 of 17 paragraph 1). “Between 2:00 and 2:30” matches the 11/5/05 discussion (audio at 2:10).

The MTSO Investigative ReportMTSO Global Subject Report, and MTSO dispatch log (audio) show raw data time stamped by a system of record that can't be changed by officers.

It shows:

11/03/2005 18:35 - Avery was entered as the suspect of "HOMICIDE NON-NEGLIGENT." 

11/03/2005 18:37 - Teresa Halbach is reported missing to the MTSO's Dispatch. 

11/03/2005 18:51 - Dispatch alerts all units of Teresa Halbach being a missing person.

On 11/03/2005, when Teresa was only reported missing, only her murderer would/should have known it was a "HOMICIDE."

Those systems should have been subpoenaed long ago, since a "system of record" logs whoever made the entry, and that person has a lot of explaining to do, especially since the evidence points to one person in LE.

Needless_Things wrote at TickTockManitowoc:

Strang and Buting were given the MCSD summary reports (including the dispatch logs) in a discovery transfer when they came on board in March of 2006.

NO MCSD AUDIO is handed over to Avery's defense team from their March 2006 request. 


PLEASE TAKE NOTE of the LARGE GAP in the MTSO logs, FROM 11/3 6:51 PM until 11/5 10:56 AM, when the RAV4 is found on the Avery property. 


THE ABOVE INFO TELLS US THAT Strang and Buting had NO IDEA that any calls were made into MTSO dispatch regarding the Halbach Case on 11/3 and 11/4 prior to the RAV being found on 11/5. 

They had NO AUDIO and MTSO DISPATCH LOGS IN THEIR POSSESSION WITH A LARGE GAP IN DATA THAT WAS MISSING.

STRANG AND BUTING didn't discover the AUDIO of Colborn's call until August 9th, 2006.