Friday, January 12, 2018

Sheriff Jerry Pagel, the Boss, "Has Something He Wants Us to Do"


Steven Avery's attorney Stephen Glynn is on hold with CASO dispatch when Sheriff Jerry Pagel calls at 9:21 PM on November 9, 2005, 4.5 hours after Steven was taken into custody by CASO at 5:03 PM for "felon in possession of a firearm":


Reading the pre-trial testimony is revealing in that it shows how involved Pagel was. I'd always assumed he was probably just the figure head of the county of residence of the missing person and which assumed leadership of the investigation. But it now looks as if he may have led, ostensibly, anyway, the focus on the Avery property and Steven Avery. From the moment I began reading pre-trial testimony, I suspected that Calumet's Pagel became the "front man" while Manitowoc was providing ideas or orders rather than just "equipment" and "resources." - MMonroe54, Reddit

 Calumet County Sheriff Jerry Pagel's testimony (page 460):

Q. Were you acquainted with the Halbach family personally, before November 3, 2005?
A. I know members of the Halbach family, yes, I do.
Q. Personally?
A. Yes.
Q. Had you known Teresa Halbach personally?
A. No, I did not.
Q. But you knew some members of her family?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that in part why Detective Wiegert said he was calling you that evening?
A. No, it was not. He had no knowledge that I would have known the Halbachs.
Q. But what he did say was, hey, we need to get the public's help, or words to that effect?
A. Yes, he felt that it was important that the information be disseminated to the media so that they could disseminate it to the public for their assistance.







Will former Calumet Sheriff Jerry Pagel meet me to talk about Ryan Hillegas?
By John Ferak
June 14, 2017

Today, at my newspaper office in Appleton, Wis., I came across an old email. Its sender was retired Calumet County Sheriff Jerry Pagel. He sought me out on the heels of the Milwaukee federal judge's ruling overturning the 2007 murder conviction of Brendan Dassey and coinciding with my three-day statewide investigative series over the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department's suspected cover-up of the 1999 hit-and-run fatality of RickyHochstetler, 17. My series chronicled the long-standing suspicions surrounding current Manitowoc County Sheriff Rob Hermann and his younger brother, Todd, who was third in command until leaving the police profession this January, soon after turning age 50. 

Here is the full text of Mr. Pagel's email from last Fall: 
Just a question – why are you not doing any in-depth stories about the history and background concerning the Avery’s? You (sic) articles continually try to make the police look bad and since you delve into the history of Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Department and the rumors, why not delve into some of the “rumors” about the past of the Avery family members and the salvage yard? Seems a bit biased. Certainly we have a vested interest in the outcome of that particular trial, but we continually notice only “cop” stories in your columns. - Jerry & Mary Pagel 
Today, I went ahead and emailed Pagel back. My primary reason is to interview him regarding overlooked murder suspect Ryan Hillegas.

http://post.cr/2s2pMcc

My email response to Pagel: 
Given the most recent court filings and developments regarding the Teresa Halbach murder case, I wanted to ask you some questions about Mr. Ryan Hillegas and your interactions with him. I am reachable at 920-993-7115. If you prefer to meet up in person, we can do that as well. 
Presuming Pagel is open to meeting with me in person for an interview, what questions would you want to ask the retired sheriff? One of the questions I want to ask surrounds the aftermath of "Making a Murderer." I am curious what members of Calumet and Manitowoc County law enforcement, past and present, Pagel has interacted with and what were these discussions? I also intend to ask some questions related to the Nov. 4 flyover he spearheaded with sheriff's investigator Wendy Baldwin.

Someone pointed out to me today that Pagel is not the first key law enforcement on the Halbach murder case to send me an email at the newspaper lambasting my coverage. The first was Manitowoc County Lt. of Detectives Andy Colborn. That story is here: http://post.cr/1RSVd0m

From Colborn's email last year: 
You know all these allegations against Mr. Lenk, myself and our agency are totally false, yet you continue to support these lies and exacerbate the problems they cause ... Your lack of responsibility and your bias is appalling. I know the truth doesn’t sell newspapers as much as lies and controversy, but for once try thinking about the consequences of the slander and defamation that you are authoring and participating in. A word of caution, be careful what you wish for. If Steven Avery is ever freed, he may just become your neighbor, and he may want to bring his nephew with him. 
Given that Colborn has ducked the news media ever since "Making a Murderer," I am not 100 percent confident Pagel will call me up for an interview. I hope he does. Back in the day, Pagel was a news media savvy sheriff, but at this critical juncture, with Zellner's Steven Avery court case heating up, Pagel may decide to lay low and become (or remain) a behind-the-scenes mover and shaker.


Calumet County Sheriff Jerry Pagel's Activity on November 3rd, 4th and 5th, 2005

Wiegert called Jerry Pagel at his home on the evening of November 3rd (pre-trial testimony):
"I believe it was November 3rd, our department received a call of a missing person, that being Teresa Halbach. Our agency became immediately involved in speaking with the relatives and friends of Teresa. And, ultimately, that Thursday evening, I received a call at home from Investigator Mark Wiegert, informing me of the fact that Teresa Halbach was missing and that last contact with her had been on October 31st."
Also on the evening of November 3rd, Pagel went to the Calumet County Sheriff's Office and contacted the media to release information on the missing person's case (CASO, page 12, and pre-trial testimony, page 450):
"Shortly after I received the call from Investigator Wiegert, I responded to the Sheriff's Department. And it's been my theory, and also information that has been provided to me through investigative matters, that the quicker you get information to the media the better. We need public's assistance in trying to locate missing individuals, and this was my thought that evening, was to get the information about Teresa, about her disappearance, to the media, so that we could have the public's assistance in attempting to locate her."


At 7:30 a.m. on November 4th, at CASO, Schultz spoke briefly to Pagel, who sent Schultz to Hilbert High School at 1139 Milwaukee Street. Schultz departed from CASO at 8:20 a.m. and arrived at HHS at 8:35 a.m. He spoke with all the seniors at 8:55 a.m. (CASO, page 23):
"Sheriff PAGEL also asked that I look into a recently called phone number of 864-7110 to see if I could ascertain who that number came back to. I left the Sheriff's Dept. at approximately 8:20 a.m. and arrived at HILBERT HIGH SCHOOL at 8:35 a.m. At approximately 8:55 a.m., I spoke with all the seniors at HILBERT HIGH SCHOOL and advised them we were attempting to locate TERESA. None of the seniors at the high school were able to provide any information."
At 8:57 a.m. on November 4th, Schultz was en route to Greenleaf, Wisconsin (per CASO dispatch log). While en route, he pulled over and called Brad Czech's land line, which was the number that Pagel had given him (Czech lived at 6693 HWY 57, Trailer 19, in Greenleaf):
"While on my way to the area of CTH K and CTH PP, I pulled over to the side of the road and dialed the 864-7110 number. I, at that time, received the voice mail of a BRADLEY C DJ. I left a message for BRADLEY C, whomever that may be, to contact me as soon as he received this message."
In his November 4th activity report, it states Schultz "notified" Pagel that the number belonged to Brad Czech and then Schultz searched "sandpits" in the area of County Road K and Jodar Road, just south of Greenleaf (he did not go to Czech's home in Greenleaf):
"After receiving the voice mailbox for BRADLEY C, I did notify Sheriff PAGEL of my findings as to the user of that number. I then searched the area of CTH K and the area of Jodar Rd., namely the sandpits located on the north side owned by DAVE JANNETTE & COMPANY. I was unable to locate anything."
The CASO dispatch log indicates that Schultz returned to CASO or was at Teresa's home at 9:42 a.m. on November 4th.

Around 10 a.m. on November 4th, Pagel was with Wiegert at Teresa's home, at which time (10:08 a.m.) Wiegert briefly interviewed Ryan Hillegas (CASO, page 31 and CASO dispatch log). It is the only record for an interview of Ryan by law enforcement (if the FBI or the Wisconsin DCI interviewed Ryan, the interviews were not entered into evidence).





At 10:46 a.m. on November 4th, Schultz was at a residence on S. 6th Street in Hilbert (per CASO dispatch log). This is the street where Ryan lived with his parents at the time. The street number has been redacted from the log released to the public in 2016. However, you can see that the number is two digits and appears to begin with a "1." Yet, there isn't an address on that street that is two digits and begins with a "1."

Suspiciously, Schultz's activity report for November 4th doesn't mention anything about him being at an address on S. 6th Street in Hilbert from 10:46 to 11 a.m. or longer (CASO, page 23).

Instead, the report goes into elaborate detail about who was listed by "dispatch" and CASO's "computer system" as having Brad Czech's land line number and that Schultz traveled to 8253 County Road W in Greenleaf, the address on record in CASO's system for Brad Czech's land line (which was not Czech's residence in Greenleaf, but the residence of Rachel Schindler):
"It should be noted prior to leaving the Sheriff's Dept., I had the 864-7110 number run through our computer system. Dispatch advised it came back to MELISSA SCHULTZ, who resided at 8253 CTH W in Brown County. After checking the area of CTH K, I drove to that residence to see if I could locate MELISSA SCHULTZ. I arrived at the CTH W address at approximately 9:40 a.m. I spoke with one resident of that address, identified as RACHEL SCHINDLER. She indicates she and JOHN PROPSON (ph) live together at that address, along with a PETE FRANK who lives in the other apartment. In speaking with RACHEL, she indicates she doesn't know a MELISSA SCHULTZ or a TERESA HALBACH. RACHEL thought that JOHN PROPSON might know MELISSA SCHULTZ. I gave her my name and phone number for him to contact me. It should be noted, he did call back in the afternoon and that phone call was forwarded to Inv. MARK WIEGERT. It should be noted, he did call back in the afternoon and that phone call was forwarded to Inv. MARK WIEGERT. After leaving the CTH W address, I returned to the county by way of Man-Cal Rd. I searched Man-Cal Rd. up to Brant-St. John Rd. in our county. Nothing of interest was found."
In his report for activity, it states that at approximately 11 a.m. on November 4th Schultz returned to Hilbert High School to search for Brad Czech's number on the internet, even though he confirmed earlier that the land line number belonged to Czech (CASO, page 24), and even though he could have returned to the Sheriff's Department, which he did next, to search the internet.
"I then stopped at the HILBERT HIGH SCHOOL at approximately 11:00 a.m. By way of the Internet, I searched the 864-7110 number, along with BRADLEY C DJ. While doing so, I came across a website devoted to Dr. MUSIC DJ's. While looking through that website, I did come across the name BRADLEY C who gave several e-mail addresses. I subsequently went to BRADLEY C's website. That website was www.bradleyc.com. While looking through the BRADLEY C website, I found a couple of photos showing an adult male, later identified as BRADLEY CZECH, with TERESA HALBACH. After finding these websites, I printed these pages and subsequently gave copies of that information to the investigative staff."
At 11:10 a.m. on November 4th, Schultz "notified" Pagel of photos he found on Brad's website while he was at Hilbert High School for the second time that morning (CASO, page 24).
"I also notified Sheriff PAGEL of the photos."
However, according to CASO's dispatch log, Schultz was not at Hilbert High School a second time on November 4th. Instead, Schultz was at CASO at 11:10 a.m. on November 4th.

At 11:52 a.m. on November 4th, Schultz was at CASO (per CASO dispatch log), where he spoke in person to Pagel and Dedering (CASO, page 24).
"After returning to the Sheriff's Dept. and speaking with him [Pagel] and Inv. DEDERING, I was advised that a BRADLEY CZECH lived at 6693 HWY 57, Trailer 19, in Greenleaf. I was requested to go to that address to see if I could ascertain if that subject lived there."
At 12:25 p.m. on November 4th (per CASO dispatch log), Pagel sent Schultz to Brad Czech's home in Greenleaf (CASO, page 24), where Schultz had spent the morning driving around, yet Schultz had never tried to find Czech's home during that time, apparently because Pagel didn't give him Czech's address (Schultz purportedly only was tasked with confirming that 864-7110 — a number Pagel got from old land line records of Teresa's dating back to December 2004 — was Czech's land line).

At 12:52 p.m. on November 4th, Schultz arrived at Czech's home (CASO, page 24 — "at approximately 2:10 p.m., Inv. WIEGERT and Inv. DEDERING arrived and approached the residence to conduct their interview").

Around 1:30 or 2 PM on November 4th, Pagel and Baldwin went up in an airplane and flew over Manitowoc, Brown and Calumet counties for about two and a half hours, until about 5 PM (CASO page 41, Curtis Drumm's testimony page 108, and CASO dispatch log). The plane wasn't equipped with aerial photography equipment: the pilot testified that one of the investigators was taking pictures and that he didn't recall anybody using a video recorder (page 116). Drumm testified that they spent 15 to 20 minutes flying over Avery Salvage Yard.

At 8:30 a.m. on November 5th, Pagel was with Dedering at Teresa's home performing a "test fax" (CASO, page 56). This was during the time period Pam Sturm (Pagel's cousin by marriage and Teresa's first cousin) arrived at Teresa's home and volunteered her services to Ryan Hillegas in searching Avery Auto Salvage.

At 10:29 a.m. on November 5th, Pam Sturm called the CASO dispatch center and spoke with Pagel about finding the RAV4 at Avery Auto Salvage (CASO, pages 58-66).

At 11:10 a.m. on November 5th, Pagel stated that he arrived with Wiegert and Dedering at Avery Auto Salvage (CASO, page 58).

Around 4 p.m. on November 5th, Pagel first logged in at the "crime scene" on the Avery property.



The following is an excerpt from Ryan Hillegas' testimony during direct examination about November 3rd:
Q. Now, on the 3rd -- By the way, that would be the first day that she had been reported missing; is that your understanding? 

A. Yes.

Q. On the 3rd, were there other friends or other family members who were assisting you in the search effort?

A. Yes. Yeah, it was me, Scott Bloedorn, one of her girlfriends, Kelly Bitsen (phonetic), came over. I believe a little later another friend, named Lisa, was over as well. 

Q. About how long that evening did you work on this project? 

A. Well, for the good portion of the night, probably, I guess, until midnight, 1:00. We were calling friends and other people we didn't get a hold of and people that were finally returning calls later. Better portion of the night. 
The following is Ryan's pre-trial testimony about his activity on the morning of November 4th:
Q. And did you, at some point, become involved in some searches of the area?

A. Yes.
Q. And how did you become involved in that? 
A. Um, once we -- I heard she was missing, I believe it was Friday morning, it would have been the 4th. I talked to the family that morning, and we had arranged to pick up posters and -- pick up posters in Appleton, at a missing person organization and, basically, it kind of started there.  
Q. Did you help put together the posters or suggest—
A. Um, the posters were already put together. I'm not sure if the family collaborated. I'm pretty sure it was the family that got together with the missing person organization. They put the posters together and printed them up for us.
Q. Did you use those posters yourself and later distribute them to others?
A. Yes.
The following is Wiegert's report on his "interview of Ryan J. Hillegas" on November 4th:
On 11/04/05 at approximately 10:08 a.m., I (Inv. WIEGERT of the CALUMET CO. SHERIFF'S DEPT.) along with Sheriff PAGEL of the CALUMET CO. SHERIFF'S DEPT. went to TERESA HALBACH's residence. Upon arrival, I met with RYAN HILLEGAS along with several other friends who were at her residence. RYAN stated the last time he had seen TERESA HALBACH was on Sunday, 10/30/05. RYAN stated TERESA seemed completely normal and they had talked about Halloween parties. He also told me TERESA was in very good spirits. RYAN described TERESA as being extremely independent. He told me he has known TERESA since they were freshmen in high school and they had dated on and off for approximately five years during that time. RYAN states TERESA previously lived at the address of 425 S. Monroe Ave., Apt. 2L, in Green Bay. He stated she had moved back to the Hilbert area in November of 2004. That was the end of my conversation with RYAN.
During his pre-trial testimony, Wiegert doesn't mention Ryan when he is asked about his activities on November 3rd. However, he does mention Ryan when he described his activities on November 5th.

Wiegert never testifies in detail about his November 4th activity, except for his interview of Brad Czech on that day (this was during cross examination, page 213).

The following is an excerpt from Wiegert's direct examination by Kratz at Avery's trial (Kratz skillfully navigates around November 4th).
Wiegert: We had also received a printout of some phone calls, correction, a phone bill that -- Teresa's phone bill actually. So we had taken that and tried to do some reverse directory things to find out who some phone calls had been made to. We also contacted Auto Trader because we knew that she had worked for Auto Trader. And they had given us some information, some appointments that she was supposed to have on the 31st. So we started following up on those type of things on that Thursday night. We went as long as we could on Thursday night, which I think we worked till probably 11:30, maybe midnight or so. We decided that we would meet back first thing on Friday morning. I think we actually came in early, around 7:00 in the morning. That morning we sat down, myself, two other investigators, and the sheriff, actually. We sat down and put together kind of what we knew at that point and decided that we would start doing some interviews.

Kratz: Let me just stop you there, Investigator, because I'm quite certain Mr. Strang would prefer I do this more by question and answer. The 4th, that is, the Friday, the 4th of November, did your missing persons investigation continue?

Wiegert: Yes, it did.

Kratz: All right. And we have heard some of the details of that missing persons investigation, but so that I can move to the area of concern for why you are being called at this moment as a witness, the next day, that is, the 5th of November, were you informed of and, in fact, did you participate in a phone call from a Pam Sturm?
Wiegert: I did. You probably heard the phone call earlier, in testimony. But we had received a phone call at around 10:29 in the morning on that Saturday from Pam Sturm, who had indicated that she had located a vehicle matching the description of Teresa's vehicle.
The following is Wiegert's pre-trial testimony about his activity on the morning of November 5th:
Q. Okay. And so, you did arrive on Saturday morning at Teresa's residence?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. And who was there?

A. Scott and Ryan were both there.

Q. Is that Scott Bloedorn (phonetic)? Is that how you say his name?

A. That sounds right.

Q. And the Ryan you are referring to is Ryan Hillegas?

A. Yes.

Q. And Ryan is -- was a former boyfriend of Teresa's, is that --

A. I heard that.

Q. -- right?

A. I'm not sure.

Q. And Scott was her roommate at the time, when she disappeared; is that right?

A. Yes. 
Q. Okay. Were there any other people there when you arrived?

A. No.

Q. So, did you ever attend any meeting with other searchers, to coordinate who would do what?

A. No.

 Q. Just when you got to Ryan -- or to Teresa's house, and those two people were there, is your only meeting; is that what you're saying?

 A. That's correct.
Interviews of Lenk, Colburn and Remiker about where they were on 11/4/05 (the night the Rav4 may have been planted)
By ticktockattorney, TickTockManitowoc
April 11, 2018

Certain people have been harping about how Avery said it was planting even before there was evidence of planting. So if everyone knew that planting was going to be a defense, why didn't the Calumet County Sheriff's Department interview the police involved in 2005 or 2006. Instead, they wait until 2007 to interview the MTSO LE. The interview of Lenk specifically says the purpose of the interview is to "pick up Lt. LENK's, Sgt. COLBURN's and Det. REMIKER's work schedules and speak with them reference their work schedule from 10/30/05 through 11/05/05 because the defense for STEVEN AVERY might be inquiring as to where these officers were from 10/30/05 to 11/05/05."

So here is what all three had to say about 11/4/05 (the night the Rav4 may have been planted):

REMIKER: On 11/04/05, Det. REMIKER worked 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM and did not recall the evening hours and his activities.

COLBURN: On Friday, 11/04/05, Sgt. COLBURN indicated he was off. He could not recall what he had done on his off day.

LENK: On Friday, 11/04/05, Lt. LENK indicated he was at work from the hours of 7:30 to 3:30 PM.

How convenient. None of them remembers anything after 4 PM. Did they go check their credit cards for any possible purchases? Did they check their phone records? These are investigators, right?


Ryan played for a garage band named "Conscious Lies"

 Zellner Fires Shot @ Ex BF…
By Chad Keller
June 7, 2017

Ryan and Scott are going to be THE TOP two suspects in this case, being:

—A: Scott is her roommate

—B: Ryan is the ex-boyfriend (in and out of her home daily!)

Thus, leaving Ryan and Scott no choice but to get involved.

But what were they hiding before Teresa’s stepfather came to Scott’s work?

Why no concern at all that Teresa is gone?

Scott lives with Teresa, and he’s dodging phone calls.

Just because Scott's schedule is different than Teresa's doesn’t mean he can’t answer the stepfather’s phone calls.

Scott claims that he and Teresa had different schedules and that he didn’t see her for the past couple of days.

However, Ryan states in court that he dropped something off for Scott and then went and talked to Teresa on her level of the house (the first level), as she was sitting at her laptop.

Ryan has eventually got to come back around and visit Scott, right?

Surely, Scott can’t say he didn’t see Ryan either to notice Teresa was gone!

You have an obsessed Ryan involved in every move Teresa is making, and he is best friends with Scott—Ryan is going to come around mentioning her.

Halloween night passes—

Teresa never came home, but Scott never answered the phone when her family calls him?

You live right down the road from Teresa’s parents but her stepfather has to come all the way to Scott’s work to get answers about Teresa’s whereabouts?

Very little is known about Scott Bloedorn.

[—THE CONFESSION AND IMMUNITY]

According to District Attorney Ken Kratz in an article by Post-Crescent, throughout his years as an investigator, Pagel was known for having exceptional interviewing skills. "He often could get a confession just by talking to a suspect," Kratz said.

The missing person’s report sends the police of the Calumet jurisdiction out to Teresa’s home.

However, neither Ryan nor Scott, to this date, have ever provided an alibi to the public.

But, they never had to.

Ryan breaks weak.

 Ryan confesses.

 They learn of Scott’s involvement to help cover up.

Confessing first to one certain official in Calumet (Pagel), this one official (Pagel) and The Manitowoc County “Dirties,” in exchange for the confession, grant Ryan and Scott immunity.

They know the whole story.

That’s why instead of becoming the natural, TWO MAIN suspects in Teresa Halbach’s disappearance, Ryan and Scott become the leaders of the search group.

Why?

Teresa is dead, Ryan confesses.

Ryan, and maybe Scott, knows the true whereabouts of Teresa’s RAV4.

But the body and RAV4 are not at Avery’s, yet.

The Manitowoc County “Dirties” need the body and RAV4 to get there.



So where is Teresa and her RAV4?

They are off the beaten trail, where Ryan “went fishing.”

Teresa’s body is either buried in a small shallow grave or "buried at sea" in Lake Michigan or some other deep body of water (Ryan is a fisherman, and fisherman have access to boats).

Teresa's remains being at the bottom of a deep body of water would explain why it took the State four days after it commandeered the Avery property, on November 8th, to "discover" bones and teeth in Avery's burn pile and burn barrel #2 [Teresa's body couldn't be recovered from the lake and planted, so they needed at least partial cremains to plant (only 30 percent of the cremains of a body were planted), and these partial cremains could very well have been the body of Carmen Boutwell, who died from a methadone overdose on the morning of November 3rd, and whose body was turned over to LE, who offered to assist with the cremation, after her funeral on November 8th, yet the family didn't receive her cremains until weeks later].

But why are Ryan and Scott granted immunity and why have they become leaders of the search group?

If the public see these two—Ryan and Scott, heading up the search group—then, apparently, they’re already cleared by the police, right?

It’s the only logical reason supporting Ryan was the killer and Scott helped to cover it up—but in order to NOT MAKE THEM SUSPECTS, they have to lead the search group.

If they aren’t leading the search group, the public is going to ask the question, "WHY ARE THE ROOMMATE AND EX-BOYFRIEND NOT BEING QUESTIONED?"

If Ryan and Scott are NOT LEADING THE SEARCH, naturally, the community is going to be probing for questioning the two.

Why don’t they have an alibi?

Folks, Ryan and Scott were granted complete immunity, but in exchange…

 Now, they have to help move Teresa and the RAV4 to Avery’s to frame him.

All the while, Ryan has to clean up behind himself.

[—THE MOTIVE TO FRAME]

Now why in the world would The Manitowoc County “Dirties” do this?

Why not arrest Ryan for the the murder of Teresa Halbach?

 Why not arrest Scott for helping to conceal it?

Why would Ryan and Scott be granted immunity for their role in the true death and concealment of the death of Teresa Halbach?

The Answer:

 It’s the perfect opportunity to frame Steven Avery and their best way, in all certainty, to stop a $36,000,000 lawsuit, being she was “last seen” on Avery’s property.

“The timing and confession of Teresa Halbach’s true killer was a money-saving prayer for Manitowoc County officials.”



[—THE MANITWOC COUNTY “DIRTIES”???]

Folks, it doesn’t take a lot of people to do this.

It doesn’t take the entire county to get involved.

It’s actually simple.

How simple?

All that has to be done is for one official (Pagel) in Calumet to grant them immunity, and then Manitowoc let Ryan and Scott lead the search group for the public eye.

Several Top commanders in charge never reveal Ryan’s murder and Scott’s involvement.

They are the Puppet Masters who pull the strings.

And just who are The Manitowoc County “Dirties”?

Just two of the top commanders named in the lawsuit planted the evidence.

“The Two Dirties”:

—James Lenk is one, and

—Andrew Colborn is the other.

And when Ryan and Scott are in Manitowoc jurisdiction, Colborn and Lenk are working hand in hand with them.

So, just how did Ryan and Scott get cleared by Calumet with little suspicion and become leaders of the search group in Manitowoc?

Well, one Wisconsin source let me know that a relative of Scott Bloedorn was a sheriff [who was thought to be Petersen].

 But, when I researched more into this truth, it turned out to be Pagel (former Calumet sheriff).

Oh! Making sense now?

Scott Bloedorn is related to Sheriff Pagel?

And who’s jurisdiction is Scott Bloedorn living in if Scott is Teresa’s roommate?

Why, but of course, Calumet.

So, how many people total does it take to hide the true disappearance of Teresa and frame Steven Avery for all of this?

Only five.

 Five people in total pulled off this whole thing:

 Ryan, Scott, Pagel, Colborn and Lenk.

The lowers in the chain of command in Calumet or Manitowoc never knew of Ryan’s confession, nor Scott’s involvement.

 No one in Manitowoc had jurisdiction to question Ryan and Scott.

 Ryan and Scott confessed in Calumet to Sheriff Pagel, putting them completely in the clear while leading the search group in Manitowoc….in the “PUBLIC EYE.”

The Manitowoc “Dirties” had an advantage to use Ryan and Scott at their dispense to get Teresa’s body and her RAV4 to the Avery property.

[—PLANTING THE EVIDENCE]

All they have to do to pull this off is get Teresa’s body and the RAV4 onto Steven Avery’s property.

Just who are they again?

This is strictly Ryan, Scott, Pagel, Colborn and Lenk.

But what about Weigert and Remiker’s involvement?

Well, you heard their conversation on the day they wanted to search the junk yard….


"The boss has something he wants us to do..." It also comes out in Remiker's pre-trial testimony that he and Wiegert talked several times again that day but by cell phone, so there are no recordings of those conversations. Remiker said Wiegert called him and said: “Hey, we have a change of plans. I think we should reinterview Steven and another individual.” Remiker said that Wiegert also indicated there were some volunteer searchers who were willing to go out and do some searches in different locations -- that he and Remiker should meet and talk about that and maybe try to get permission from the Averys to search the salvage yard.

 “THE BOSS SAYS” change of plans…

Pagel is keeping Weigert in check while Remiker is fed chain of commands from Lenk.

And Colborn is working with Ryan to get the RAV4 on the Avery property.

Ryan has to get to the “fishing hole” to get the RAV4 and get it back to the Avery property, along with giving Teresa’s body to Lenk, so he can have it burned elsewhere to place in Avery’s burn pile.

The body assuredly was given to Lenk way before Ryan drove the RAV4 from his “fishing hole” to the RAV4 discovery site on the Avery property (or, if Teresa's body was dropped into a deep lake, it may not have been recoverable, so the planters needed the cremated bones and teeth of another female to frame Avery).

Ryan even gets to park the RAV4 on the Avery property, with Lenk and Colborn letting him come through.

Hence the fact he knew exactly where to point Pam to find it.

Why do you think Ryan beforehand have purposely sent the rest of the searchers on a wild goose chase?

Ryan is handing out the maps.

Ryan's pre-setup task is to keep everyone away from that side of the Avery property.

[—And Teresa’s body being burned?]

With the way Ryan was clawed and scratched and bruised. as freshly as seen in the documentary, there is going to be Ryan Hillegas under Teresa’s nails.

Folks, not only does Ryan have no albi—but why is he never questioned for what looks like recently sustained bruises and scratches?

This is exactly why none of this ever comes out.

Because they already knew Ryan murdered Teresa.

So finding cremated bones and teeth in the burn pit?

It goes with the story of building a fire that evening.

Sprinkle bones at the Avery burn pit.

But, funny— they didn’t find the bones early.

I mean, if you’re suspecting Avery of murder… you go on that property and find those bones within five minutes.

Teresa’s body would have proved Ryan Hillegas was the killer.

What other evidence on Ryan is there that got left out because they knew he was the killer?

Ryan unlawfully hacks into her phone records from her laptop.

This itself is a criminal act, which proves Pagel and The Manitowoc County “Dirties” not only knew his motive and confession of the killing, yet they also allowed him to cover up behind him.



[—The Certainty of Evidence to Frame Avery]

To understand the logical probability of gaining a conviction in a case, you have to rule out suspects.

The Manitowoc County “Dirties” strategically placed, in the public eye, ex-boyfriend, Ryan Hillegas, and roommate, Scott Bloedorn, as the leaders of the search group.

Why?

What does this do?

It takes the the WOULD BE TOP SUSPECTS Ryan and Scott—if NOT appointed search leaders, it would leave locals to probe—and, logically, it says, “Hey, Ryan Hillegas and Scott Bloedorn are clear” (though, magically, without alibis).

This leaves the probability of the next TOP SUSPECT and "the person to see Teresa Halbach last, Steven Avery," to take the fall, with a bonus of snagging a coerced confession out of Dassey.

The Manitowoc County “Dirties” built the case evidence around Avery and Dassey’s statements.

All while hiding the evidence of Ryan Hillegas’ motive to kill Teresa Halbach—and Ryan’s very murder of Teresa Halbach, with the help of Scott to conceal.

With that being said, immunity is granted after Ryan confesses he killed Teresa, with Scott helping to cover it up.

But now, for the framing—

Ryan and Scott now have to get the body to the “Dirties” in order for the “Dirties” to get the RAV4 onto the Avery property.

Theoretically, this is the reason the search of the property took numerous days.

Not only do Ryan and Scott have to play spotlight search heroes, they have to work with the “Dirties” behind the checkpoint scenes to strategically print maps and send the members of the search group away so they can hide the RAV4 at the salvage yard.

The burning of the body becomes self explanatory: to make sure none of Ryan Hillegas’ DNA on Teresa is ever discovered, period (and to conceal the manner of death), or they didn't have a body to plant because it had been dumped in a deep body of water and couldn't be recovered.

[—Building the Case]

What exactly is Kratz’s involvement?

I seriously even doubt Kratz knew any of this either.

Kratz directed Ryan’s testimony naturally, knowing Avery’s defense would try to pick Ryan apart as being Teresa’s ex-boyfriend.

As far as Scott Bloedorn never coming to the trial?

Pagel leaves any evidence linking Scott out on purpose.

All Kratz knows is what everybody else in the public eye does.

Basically, Kratz was duped, like everyone else, believing RYAN AND SCOTT WERE CLEARED, leaving Kratz to argue that Avery was the last person to see Teresa alive.

Kratz is taking on a high profile case thinking AVERY is guilty from the beginning. He is completely in the dark about Ryan and Scott's confessions and the evidence of Teresa Halbach’s true death.



The involvement of Mike Halbach?

Young and naive at the time, he is completely innocent.

However, for his weird actions you have to remember this…

He’s very close to Ryan and Scott.

Ryan and Scott are working hand in hand with Colborn and Lenk in Manitowoc during this disappearance of Mike's sister.

So, naturally, to Mike, Ryan and Scott are, ironically, always at the scene of some new development in his sister’s disappearance case.

He’s supporting Ryan and Scott and the officers because, hell, Ryan and Scott are magically and ironically always ending up on the scene in the big turnout discoveries, like where they pointed Pam in the right direction and God helped Pam discover the RAV4.

The “Dirties” play Ryan and Scott against Mike, psychologically.



Mike Halbach had no involvement in his sister’s death.

It just happens to be he has no lead but Avery since RYAN AND SCOTT are cleared and are helping to turn up magic as search leaders.

So, to him, his natural thoughts are, AVERY DID IT.

He despises AVERY because that’s his only lead.

He’s defending Ryan because all Mike knows is that Ryan is in the clear.

Leave Ryan alone; go for Avery.

Are we a little closer to the truth yet, in theory?

Somewhere, justice will prevail for our three known victims:

Avery,

Dassey, and

Miss Halbach.

Might one day the world know the truth.



Ryan Hillegas Pre Trial Testimony: Excerpts, Summaries and Comments
By MMonroe54, TickTockManitowoc
January 5, 2018

Hillegas pre-trial testimony (p. 61-116):

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Partial-Motion-Hearing-Part-1-2006Aug09.pdf

Try as I do to keep posts brief, and to leave enough white space that they are not a wall of text, they are still too long and too dense. Therefore, I hope to limit Ryan Hillegas' actual testimony and instead summarize what he testified to, with comments, as usual.

From the beginning, in response to Buting's Direct Examination, Hillegas is often vague to the point of appearing evasive, but never hostile. He just appears incomprehensibly..... almost intentionally..... non-committal. It is my impression that Ryan Hillegas is a smart and canny guy.

In response to Buting's questions about searches, Hillegas says he told "Jerry" [Ryan is on a first-name basis with Sheriff Pagel] they were putting up flyers on Friday [Ryan is communicating this to "Jerry" on November 3rd or 4th, yet there aren't any reports by Jerry Pagel in the CASO file about his contact with Ryan] and their plan was to go out on Saturday "and drive around the countryside and look for anything that was interesting, or worth taking a second look at." He says he just kind of happened to become the coordinator and contact for the whole search. He says "basically, I guess it started with me."

A note here: Hillegas uses the word "basically" a lot, so much that it could begin to look like a qualifier, as in, "maybe, maybe not." A way of hedging his bets, so to speak (another tribute to Fassbender -- "so to speak"). But that's only an assumption; it could simply be a habit .... the way I use "apparently" lol. But he says it so much that Fallon, at one point, calls him on it. When Fallon is cross examining Hillegas, he asks about Pam Sturm showing up to volunteer and her suggestion that she search ASY.

Fallon: It was her idea?

Hillegas: Basically, yes.

Fallon: All right. Well, when you say basically?

Hillegas: Yeah, it was entirely her idea. She was the one that mentioned it to me.

So even Fallon has noticed how often Hillegas says "basically," And wants to clarify that in this instance it means "yes" not "maybe." And perhaps, to draw Ryan's attention to how often he says it?

Hillegas also says "I don't know," "I'm not sure," "I don't remember," "I don't think so," "I'm not real clear," and "I believe so" a lot. As in, a lot.

Hillegas doesn't know when or if he talked to Wiegert, and if he did talk to him, what he told him. He doesn't know if he told him about a meeting on Saturday morning to organize searchers. When asked "Did you have any information from the police, or otherwise, as to where Teresa was last seen or where she was going on the day she was last seen," his answer is: "I'm not sure. I don't believe that -- that we knew where she was last seen then. I'm not real clear about that, like I say." But then he says, “I knew that she had been taking pictures out in the Manitowoc County area.”

Q. Okay. And did you know that one of the locations was the Avery Salvage property?

A. I believe I did, yes.

Hillegas seems sure of some things, totally unsure of others. He's sure what they did Friday, with creating and marking maps. He knows they stayed up all night. In fact, he refers to this in an odd little way as a reason he's not sure about things. He says they stayed up most of Thursday night, planning all day Friday, "all day Friday night," making maps and posters, sizing and scaling them (though he also says the posters came from the YES organization and that he just picked them up in Appleton).... "Yeah, I guess, you know, three days without sleep will -- I don't know what else to tell you."

But he's not sure if they knew where his friend was last seen? Wouldn't that be paramount in his mind? It would be where everyone would start looking, I'd think -- knocking on doors, asking people if they'd seen her.

(By the way, did either county say they checked hospitals or ambulance services in the area, to see if a Jane Doe had been brought in? Anyone remember that?)

And now we get to the search -- or not -- of the Avery property. Buting asks if people were assigned to or volunteered to take certain sections.

Hillegas: Yes.

Buting:. And one of those sections included the Avery property?

Hillegas: No, that's not correct.

Buting: So, you did not -- That was not something that was considered, by you, to be an area that should be searched?

Hillegas: By me, I considered it an area that, you know, we definitely should look at. That morning, as you (I think he means "we") were talking, we did not specifically tell anybody to go there. It was more or less the surrounding areas and the counties around there.

Well, why in the world not??! They divided the maps into sections and no one volunteered to go to the Avery property? And Ryan didn't suggest to anyone that they go to the Avery property? They knew she had been there but they didn't suggest to one single volunteer -- until Pam Sturm came along and suggested it herself -- that they go out to Avery Salvage Yard and ask to look around?

Buting asks about Pam Sturm, did Ryan know her, had he ever met her? Ryan denies knowing her but says she might have been there Friday morning: "I took names down, I don't remember who I talked to. Basically, we were in such a hurry, by the time I got back, that I didn't have time to meet and greet with anybody." Basically, again.

Buting asks what time Pam arrived. Ryan says, "Pam showed up maybe an hour or two after everybody else had left." Buting asks if Ryan knew that she was a former private investigator?

Hillegas: At that time, I don't know if I did.

Buging: Did she -- Do you recall her telling you anything about any experience she might have had, with searches?

Hillegas: I don't remember that. I don't know.

Buting asks if Ryan, hearing Pam's suggestion that she search ASY, discussed whether she should get permission, or what her procedure should be, or anything of that sort?

Hillegas: I don't remember that. I really don't remember what was discussed. Basically [yet another "basically!], that she wanted to go in there and just said, well, if that's what you want to do. I wasn't going to tell her no, but I, specifically, didn't want to tell anybody that they should either, but.

Buting: But you were coordinating all this, right?

Hillegas: Yes.

Buting: So there wouldn't be overlap?

Hillegas: Yes.

Buting asks if Ryan discussed with her that the police might be searching that area and you should check with them? Hillegas gave his by now familiar non-committal answer: “I do not think so. I guess I'm not real sure, though. I don't believe so.”

Then we come to his giving Pam Sheriff Jerry Pagel's personal number, which was on the card Pagel had given Ryan.

Buting: Is she the only one you gave that personal number to?

Hillegas: I believe so.

It's my opinion, he darn well knew so, but he hedges his answer, so as not to be definite.

A cynic, or a someone suspicious of how tidy this all seemed, might suggest that the reason Pam Sturm arrived late, long after all the other volunteers had left, was so that, when she suggested searching the Avery property, there would not be other searchers there to volunteer to go along, as in: "What a good idea! We'll go, too; it will speed things up if there are several of us looking through that salvage yard and all those cars!"

Buting asks Ryan if, after the RAV4 was found, he ever went to the Avery property and when it was.

Hillegas: Geez, when did we go there? I'm not real sure on the dates. It was possibly that Monday or Tuesday, which would have been, let's see, was that the 6th or 7th, that Monday?

He went there, he says, to search. But it's unclear why they would enter Avery property, when he says they went into the "very outskirt areas of the enclosed areas ... walked a flat winter green field with nothing in it ... walked across the road ... I believe it was public land, just forested, and fields by some houses."

He admits he was allowed past the police checkpoint "after we kind of got a land assignment." Buting asks if the officers who let him in knew he was an ex-boyfriend of the missing woman. Ryan's answer: "I don't know if anybody knew I was an ex-boyfriend of hers. I guess I never saw the relevance in it."

Buting: Did Sheriff Pagel know that?

Hillegas: What's that?

Buting: Did Sheriff Pagel know of your relationship with her?

Hillegas: I don't believe so. I think everybody just assumed I was a good friend.

And later, on redirect by Buting, asking again about the searches:

Buting: And I'm sorry, I don't remember, but by that point had you told Sheriff Pagel that you were her -- Teresa's former boyfriend?

Hillegas: I don't know. Like I said earlier, I really wasn't, you know; I guess I didn't tell too many people about it. It never really occurred to me that it was an issue. And it was quite a while ago, that we dated.

Buting: But you were still seeing her as recently as the day before, that she disappeared, right?

Hillegas: Yes.

Buting: And Sheriff Pagel knew that?

Hillegas: Yes, I believe so.


Wiegert interviewed Ryan Hillegas (image above) around 10 AM on November 4th when he was with Pagel at Teresa's home (it is the only document entered into evidence of an interview with Ryan by law enforcement).

 Ryan Hillegas committed perjury when he testified under oath that he and Scott were interviewed together, in the same room (day 2, page 188):
Q. Did the police interview you and Scott together, or did they put you in separate rooms when they talked to you, or how did they do that?

A. I believe we were -- I believe we were in the same room.
Scott, along with Teresa's parents and some unnamed friends (Lisa and Kelly), were interviewed around 6:30 PM on November 3rd in the house that Scott shared with Teresa (CASO, page 7). Ryan was not with them in the house, let alone in the same room, when questioned. In fact, Ryan and Scott were interviewed 15 hours apart, on completely different days, per CASO.


[–]Larrytheloader

Goes back to the so called meeting on 11/3 @1900 hrs with Colborn, Lenk, Dedering, Remiker and Jacobs at MTSO. That is when the conspiracy begins.

According to CASO reports, Colborn arrived at the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department and met with Dedering, Lenk, Remiker and Jacobs at 7 PM, after he had visited the Avery property and spoken to Steven about Teresa.

Wiegert's report:

[On Thursday, 11/03/05] At approximately 1800 hours [6 p.m.] I [Wiegert] did make phone contact with STEVEN P. SCHMITZ. STEVEN states he and CRAIG have a car they own together and were selling through the AUTO TRADER magazine. According to STEVEN, he received a phone call from TERESA HALBACH at approximately 1:10 p.m. on Monday, 10/31/05. STEVEN told me TERESA arrived at his residence at N253 CTH A, New Holstein, between the hours of 1:30 p.m. and 1 :45 p.m. on Monday, 10/31/05.

Cpl. LEMIEUX and I then responded to TERESA's residence at the address of W3637 CTH B. Upon arrival, we were let into the residence, which SCOTT and TERESA rent.

I contacted the MANITOWOC COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT and spoke with Sgt. ANDREW COLBORN. I informed Sgt. COLBORN we were investigating a missing person's complaint. I also informed Sgt. COLBORN that we had two residences we would like to have checked, one being the STEVEN AVERY property and the second one being the GEORGE ZIPPERER property. Sgt. COLBORN indicated to me he would go over and attempt contact with Mr. AVERY.

I also received a phone call from Manitowoc County Lt. JIM LENK. I informed him of the situation. Lt. LENK informed me he would call some people in and assist us in the investigation.

I did contact Inv. DEDERING, who went to MANITOWOC COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT and then eventually met with GEORGE ZIPPERER.

I did receive a phone call back from Sgt. COLBORN indicating he, in fact, had spoken with STEVEN AVERY. Sgt. COLBORN informed me STEVEN had told him TERESA had shown up on Monday afternoon and took some pictures of his van that was for sale. He also informed me STEVEN was not sure on what day it was and did not know what time TERESA had shown up at his residence. Sgt. COLBORN also informed me the B. JANDA information would be STEVEN's sister, BARBARA JANDA, and she would live right next door to STEVEN.

That was the end of my conversation with Sgt. COLBORN. I left TERESA's residence and went back to the sheriff's department.

Dedering's report:

On Thursday, 11/03/05 at 1730 hrs. [5:30 p.m.], I (DEDERING) was alerted by Inv. WIEGERT of a missing person who is a resident of Calumet County. WIEGERT indicated that TERESA HALBACH had last been seen on Monday, 10/31/05, and that her parents had recently reported her missing.

On Thursday, 11/03/05 at approximately 1900 hrs. [7 p.m.], I (DEDERING) did arrive at MANITOWOC CO. SHERIFF'S DEPT. There I met with Det. DENNIS JACOBS, Lt. JAMES LENK, Det. DAVID REMIKER, and Sgt. ANDREW COLBORN regarding this matter.

I learned that Sgt. COLBORN had been to the address of THOMAS JANDA (12930 Avery Rd., Two Rivers) and had spoken with an individual known to him as STEVEN AVERY. Apparently COLBORN leamed that AVERY's sister, BARBARA, is married to Mr. JANDA. COLBORN learned that AVERY was attempting to assist his sister, BARBARA JANDA, in selling a vehicle of some soft, and that AVERY was going to advertise this vehicle in the "AUTO TRADER" magazine that Ms. HALBACH works for.

AVERY had indicated to Sgt. COLBORN that the individual who had been scheduled to take the photographs had done so, but AVERY could not recall whether the photographer had gotten there in the late morning or the afternoon. COLBORN learned that, according to AVERY, the photographer had left the Avery Rd. address and had gone on, possibly to another area.

At 2115 hrs. [9:15 p.m.], while at the MANITOWOC CO. SHERIFF'S DEPT., I received a telephone call from Inv. WIEGERT indicating that he had spoken with a representative from AUTO TRADER and that the AUTO TRADER had spoken with GEORGE ZIPPERER and it was determined further that TERESA HALBACH had been at the ZIPPERER residence.

[–]AVERYMANOR

There was a fly-over on the 4th, which included the Avery property. He's full of crap that he never considered searching the area until Pam brought it up.

Avery willingly talked with Andy on evening of the 3rd.

Avery willingly allowed Lenk and (Remiker?) to do a walk through of his trailer the morning of the 4th.

As an Officer/Investigator I would've politely asked if I could do a search of the property when I was there on the 3rd (Colborn). The Trailer, the garage and the yard. Use a flashlight, put Steve in the car with you to navigate around the yard. I guarantee Steve would've said "sure, I ain't got nuttin ta hide".

And if Colborn was too dumb to think about that what about the next morning when Lenk and Remiker had Steve's permission to look inside the trailer, didn't demand a warrant, didn't hesitate, no concerns...

There was a newscast on NBC26 that aired and Steven was talking to the news crew....Ryan probably wasn't watching the news though. /S

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtrzOgH2k10&t=12s

[–]MMonroe54[S]

I think Ryan Hillegas either decided himself to be unsure about things or he was advised to be as non-committal as he was. In one way, he seemed to want to be the hero -- organizing the searchers, picking up the posters, staying up all night printing and marking maps -- and in another he appeared to want to distance himself, especially, perhaps, from any knowledge he would have no way of having. Just my opinion, of course.

[–]Turk182

Wasn’t that the option of Zellner's profiler also? The killer inserting himself into the investigation to direct it away from himself?

Failure of Law Enforcement to Investigate Ms. Halbach's Background to Realize That She Was at an Elevated Risk of Becoming a Victim of Violence

[Ms.] Halbach, the victim in this case, could be considered to be at an elevated risk for becoming the victim of violence due to her prior abusive relationship with her ex- boyfriend, [Mr.] Hillegas, and her business, which involved nude photography. Third party advertisers began advertising Ms. Halbach's business as providing "adult entertainment services." Although there is no proof that Ms. Halbach herself chose to advertise her business as providing "adult entertainment services," her nude photography business led others to advertise her business as providing "adult entertainment services."

Failure of Law Enforcement to Identify Prior Abuse in Ms. Halbach's Romantic Relationships to Correctly Assess the Motive for Her Murder

Based upon violent crime statistics, the killer most likely knew Ms. Halbach and may have been involved, at some point in time, in a romantic relationship with her.

The relationship was characterized by verbal and physical abuse by the killer towards Ms. Halbach. Even after Ms. Halbach ended their relationship, the killer continued to attempt to exert control over her by living nearby and coming to her home frequently.

Before Ms. Halbach's murder, the killer most likely became aware that she was sexually involved with a married man [Brad Czech] and a second male [Scott Bloedorn], who was a very close friend of the killer's.

The Killer's Post-Mortem Activities to Conceal Evidence and Frame Mr. Avery

The killer wanted to control the investigation and direct it towards the single goal of framing Mr. Avery for the murder. To accomplish that goal, he volunteered to take control of the citizen search as a means of both staying informed and controlling the focus of the investigation.

In his initial contact with law enforcement, the killer immediately attempted to misdirect their investigation by not telling them about his relationship with Ms. Halbach or her relationship with other men.

The killer participated in the discovery of major pieces of evidence, even going as far as leading searchers to the vehicle that he planted.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Motion-for-Post-Conviction-Relief.pdf

[–]birdzeyeview

Not only that, but on this day and other days before it, RH was able to send the volunteers to specific areas, which meant also that he was able to direct them AWAY from specific areas. Very useful when you have planters moving RAv4 and so on, isn't it? Nobody is going to happen across them.

His own pretrial testimony is a goldmine. He uses very evasive and deceptive language ALL THE TIME. The "can't recalls" are the questions KK has coached him on in order not to outright lie on stand (though I believe he still does this at times, and also at trial). Another distancing thing he uses a lot in all his testimony is the use of "we" and "some of us" and "a bunch of us" vs "I".

When he does this, another red flag, IMO.

I also picked up on the extreme evasiveness /denials on Weigert. This to me is (one of many) red flags, and these areas where he evades or "can't recalls" are the EXACT ones that need to have the deeper look... so he is giving us clues, bigtime.

You can tell so much from what he does NOT say, as as well as what he does say.

In terms of unaccounted for time in his timeline, there is NO account ever given, to my knowledge, of the time between Thursday AM November 4th and late that same evening! The day of the 22 calls from LE and the alleged RAV4 movement.

The whole thing with Saturday morning and Pam is just so glaring, what they were doing -- get rid of all the other volunteers and send her right in to exact location of RAV4.

There is SUCH a lot to be discovered in this testimony.

[–]JJacks61

     But he says it so much that Fallon, at one point, calls him on it. When Fallon is cross examining Hillegas, he asks about Pam Sturm showing up to volunteer and her suggestion that she search ASY. Fallon: It was her idea? Hillegas: Basically, yes. Fallon: All right. Well, when you say basically? Hillegas: Yeah, it was entirely her idea. She was the one that mentioned it to me.

I just don't believe him. Let's break this down.

They know Teresa's appointments. Doesn't matter which order.

Knowing Teresa had gone to the ASY, the so-called "leader" doesn't think about or consider searching there. I have to call bullcrap here.

PoGs suggests and volunteers herself and her daughter to go search 40+ acres and thousands of junk cars. The bullcrap has now went to bullsh*t.

Luckily, GOD led PoGs to the RAV4 in 20-25 minutes. It helped that the RAV4 had crap piled all over it.

Why would Ryan only send TWO people to search that much area? More bullcrap. Only searchers given the Sheriff's cell phone number. Only searchers given a digital camera. We are now into a field of bullshit.

He says "basically, I guess it started with me."

Funny how that is. Normally, LE leads these things with volunteers helping them, not the other way around. This was/is a massive manipulation that is completely overlooked.

This should tell everyone the fix was in. WHY wouldn't LE search these areas, asking for volunteer help? Have people drive every route from her house to these different appointments?

Excellent analysis OP. Ryan is one shady character. By NOT committing on hardly anything, he showed just how shallow his friendship with Teresa really was.

[–]MMonroe54[S]

I don't believe him either, at least not his testimony about PS's arrival, the ASY suggestion, and the number he gave her from "Jerry's" card. As I said elsewhere, that part of his testimony became Red Flag City for me.....or as you succinctly put it: BS, capital B, capital S! None of it is logical.

a) that PS and her daughter, knowing nothing about ASY, having never been there, thought they could search it in a day.

b) that RH, knowing TH's schedule, hadn't already been there himself, or some of her family had.

As someone else asked, why did they wait until Saturday to start searches, hanging posters, etc. on Friday? I'd think her family would be out combing the roads late Thursday afternoon and into the night. 

As soon as they got the info that night from AT, why weren't family and friends on the road, looking for her car in a ditch somewhere? And that RH himself wouldn't go to ASY? Not believable.

I also said elsewhere that I think PS was sent to find the RAV because someone had found it earlier while trespassing or someone put it there to be found.

I thought RH demonstrated a little ego about being in charge of the search, but without knowing him, that may be unfair to say. His vagueness about who he talked to and what he remembered was altogether suspect, though, I thought. He struck me as pretty smart so I didn't buy all that unsureness.

[–]butterflycaught2

   "Yeah, I guess, you know, three days without sleep will -- I don't know what else to tell you."

He says he was aware of TH’s disappearance from Thursday afternoon onwards, so how come he’s not had sleep since Wednesday? How can any sober (not drugged up) person stay awake for three full days and nights?

And then he was awake on Saturday morning as well. Was Scott’s birthday party on Wednesday? Why wouldn’t RH have slept at all that night, if he didn’t find out about TH’s disappearance until Thursday pm?

If there were no searches (or hiding evidence, burning the body etc) on Wednesday, then there was absolutely no reason to stay awake all night, or not to at least have a nap on Thursday.

On the other hand, if he meant he was awake Thursday, Friday and Saturday morning, then that’s technically only two nights and days.

He mentions the sleep in regards to Buting’s question if he had contact with Wiegert on Saturday morning. He doesn’t know. If he’d been awake since Wednesday (or Thursday) he would be more than tired on Saturday. Sleep withdrawals for more than a night lead to people being in a state similar to drunkenness. They end up making lots of mistakes, crash their cars etc. “21 hours awake was equivalent to a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent, which is the blood alcohol limit for drunk driving in the US.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_deprivation).

From http://bgr.com/2015/12/02/sleep-deprivation-body-mind-side-effects/

72 hours of no sleep

At this point, you can expect to see huge problems with “concentration, motivation, perception, and other higher mental processes.” Also, it’s not uncommon for people up for three days straight to begin hallucinating. Additionally, staying up for three days straight will adversely affect one’s senses, including their vision, sense of smell, and sense of touch. Other consequences include tremors, false memories, and muscle aches.”

The Tell

He says he just kind of happened to become the coordinator and contact for the whole search. He says "basically, I guess it started with me."

Is this a huge tell he’s giving us here? If he’s really referring to the disappearance and murder of TH and he was the killer, then, yes, it did start with him.

If he’s referring to the search, then, no, it didn’t start with him. He says that Scott called him Thursday night to ask if he’d seen Teresa, which indicates that Scott was searching for her already. In the testimony he says he goes to pick up flyers on Friday morning, flyers the family had prepared, he believes.

If he’s referring to being the contact person for the poster and flyer people, and later the search, then why is it him? Why use such a strange expression?!

He goes on to state that on Friday 50 to 60 people showed up to hang up posters and flyers. Why is there still nobody searching? Instead of searching for her they send people to hang posters?! Monday afternoon and evening, no Teresa. Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, there is still NOBODY LOOKING FOR TERESA. Why on earth not? That story just doesn’t make any sense.

[–]Shamrockholmes9

I wish Buting would have asked RH why he didn't go with all the searchers he sent out on Saturday morning to help with the search. And asked Pam how she knew if she showed up 2 hours late to where the search was being organized that the organizer would still be there and would not have been long gone out searching with everyone else. Not that RH would've given much of an answer, but I bet it would've tripped him up a bit.

[–]Twstdtrth

It sounds like it was very well known that going to Crivitz on the weekends was the usual routine for the Averys. Going to Crivitz gives LE the opportunity to search the ASY without everyone being there.

 [And they prevented Barb Janda from entering the Avery property on November 5th by arresting her at a checkpoint for possession of marijuana. Bobby Dassey also was not allowed on the property on November 5th: he was stopped at a checkpoint while attempting to enter to get his puppy from his home. Bryan Dassey lived at his girlfriend's home and only stored his clothes at Barb's home, so he wasn't on the Avery property on November 5th, when it was commandeered by law enforcement.] 

With a warrant could they go in and search if no one was at The ASY?

They didn't know which vehicle would be used to drive to Crivitz.

Most us have already heard the phone call about "The Boss" wants us to see if ASY will allow the TH family's volunteer team to search the ASY. 

Did they know it was only Earl tending the ASY or did they think he also went to Crivitz? Why did they take this time to arrest BT for possession of marijuana around 2 PM on November 5th? Is it because they wanted as many of the family members off the property?

They took 8 days to search or "Making a Crime Scene," if not longer, if you count 10/31/2005 (and LE commandeered the property for 8 days, a property that the family paid taxes on and made their living from and actually lived on).

The fact that Pagel lied about Manitowoc's role in the investigation is enough for a mistrial
By c4virus, MakingaMurderer
May 6, 2016

The fact that it was turned over to Calumet shows that they were aware of a conflict of interest. They let everyone know that they are aware of it and that the dignity of the investigation is important to them so they will take the necessary measures to avoid any scenario where it may be called into question...

There is a press conference where this is stated, explicitly.

Then it all turns out to be bullshit. Which is the other infuriating piece about this whole thing. Let's say SA is guilty. The fact that the police lied and did not take their job seriously would, in a sane world, have led to him not being convicted even if the evidence against him were overwhelming. Police cannot be allowed to lie. It should have been a mistrial based on that alone.

Who were the Manitowoc officers reporting to? If Pagel is the boss of Calumet officers, and you have Manitowoc officers all over the place, who is in charge of them? Kenneth Petersen is the Manitowoc Sheriff but who is running the investigation, Pagel or Petersen? Again who are the Manitowoc officers reporting to? What kind of investigation has two bosses running it, or people inside of said investigation not reporting to anyone?

I just finished a discussion with an individual who said the police never lied and never held back the fact that Manitowoc was aiding in the investigation. Apparently the below comment makes it crystal clear that Manitowoc is involved in the investigation with Calumet.

Calumet Sheriff Pagel:
I want to emphasize that the investigation is being conducted by the Calumet County Sheriff's Department, the State of Wisconsin, Division of Criminal Investigation, and the FBI is also going to be assisting us. The Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department's role in this investigation was to provide resources for us when they were needed. 
As we needed items on the property to conduct searches, they provided that piece of equipment and that's their role and their only role in this investigation.
So what is a mistrial? A quick definition via Google Search (the last piece is the relevant piece here):
A judge may declare a mistrial for several reasons, including lack of jurisdiction, incorrect jury selection, or a deadlocked, or hung, jury. A deadlocked jury—where the jurors cannot agree over the defendant's guilt or innocence—is a common reason for declaring a mistrial. Extraordinary circumstances, such as death or illness of a necessary juror or an attorney, may also result in a mistrial. A mistrial may also result from a fundamental error so prejudicial to the defendant that it cannot be cured by appropriate instructions to the jury, such as improper remarks made during the prosecution's summation.
If they turned the investigation over in the first place they are already admitting that having Manitowoc be part of the investigation would taint the entire thing. So how in the hell were they then allowed to be part of the investigation? The ethics and integrity of the officers and Sheriffs is, at that moment, broken. They lied, plain and simple.

Then people find it unbelievable that liars might be okay with doing some more lying?

What proof do we have that Steven ever lied about anything?

The Press Conference where Kratz tells the world what supposedly happened should have also been grounds for a mistrial.

Even if you think SA is guilty the conduct of the sheriffs, officers and prosecutors should infuriate you. Some Judges won't be as lenient as Willis was and would have actually taken their job seriously.

Edit: The other question here is why risk it? Why risk having Manitowoc officers in play which could jeopardize convicting a supposed guilty person? Either Pagel knows that the judge won't care about obvious lies OR the risk of a mistrial was worth it...

[–]AVERYMANOR

A **PRETRIAL CONFERENCE** Between Manitowoc And Calumet On 06/29/06 @1600 Hrs.

Andrew Colborn's MTSO report (2nd to last paragraph, bottom of pg. 16) references this "conference" taking place.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/MTSO-Summary-Report-on-Homicide-Investigation.pdf

I'm challenging the reason for this "Pretrial conference" in conjunction with the VALIDITY/MERIT of Pagel's public press conference referencing that Manitowoc's involvement was limited and the MTSO involvement pertains "ONLY" to equipment.

IMO, this pretrial conference was needed to confer with each other to discuss and explain why Manitowoc officials were the only ones to find the "critical" evidence.

OOOOOPS.

[–]dorothydunnit

On a personal level, if I were there and faced with this horrific crime and IF I was SURE SA had raped, murdered, dismembered, and cremated THs body behind his freaking trailer, I would have probably said some pretty horrible things publicly to the press as well. It wouldn't be the right thing to do, but if you were truly convinced of it, I c

I don't see it as understandable at all. As professionals, both Kratz and Pagel should have been cognizant of the ethics and boundaries around their conduct. That's why they are called professionals and are given the salary by the taxpayers to act as such.

There is no excuse at all for their misconduct.

As a comparison point in Canada, we have had trials like the Pickton, who fed the bodies of women to their pigs, Bernardo, who tortured young girls before killing them, and the guy (can't remember what his name was) who chopped off the head of a fellow passenger on a bus.

NONE of the prosecutors went over the top in the communication. Why not? Because society holds them to a higher standard of professional conduct than Americans hold their prosecutors.

In fact, here, even IF a prosecutor said such things, the media would not report them because the media themselves would be heavily fined for doing so. They would most likely say, "the prosecutor gave details.... and the prosecutor is now under investigation..."

Plus, the penalties are swift and sure.

I am making this comparison because I find too many people (not necessarily you) dismiss Kratz's conduct at "well, that's what prosecutors do".

I am just saying, no they don't. Not when its drilled into them its unacceptable.

[–]innocens

The things that make me question Pagel's involvement is him being at TH's house on the morning of the 5th; his sitting alongside KK at that conference; his allowing MTSO officers on scene, and his 'hiding' SA from his lawyers; and he must have had a hand in preventing the Coroner being barred from the scene.

He could have told KK that the conference was wrong and unethical -- he didn't.

He could have stopped MTSO officers being involved in any way and he didn't.

He could have insisted on SA having immediate access to his lawyer (as is his right) and he didn't.

He could have insisted on the presence of the (a) Coroner, as the law requires - he didn't.

There's no way I can absolve him of any responsibility or knowledge.

[–]knowjustice

Yes, the County brought in a retired clerk whose spouse was on the jury to work as a temp during the SA trial.

[–][deleted]

I just can't shake though him personally getting those photographs in her trunk so quickly and calling her bank for financial records, as if he was doing some damage control for the family, but it could definitely be as simple as you are saying. btw, are those photos on the evidence list, do you know offhand?

Pg 32 of Caso. I could be wrong but this part has always seemed a little staged. They talk to the new friend, Jolene Bain, who tells them about Brad Czech and the photos. This friend is the new "confidante" who has only recently developed a close relationship with TH, and TH divulges her close secrets to. It is rather helpful that Jolene is able to say so many things about BC. 

Additionally, sometimes I have wondered if Jolene was asked to be the new but not old friend to tell the story and point to the pictures for Pagel to take and get out of the way, asked by the family or by RH/SB. (Edit: Seems like damage control to me, someone going through her trunk, pictures found, get a new/ not old friend to hand the pictures over to the family friend, the Sheriff.)

"At that time, Sheriff PAGEL and I (Wiegert) did go back into TERESA's bedroom. I did locate in a trunk....directly next to TERESA's bed several nude photos of a male and a female" " I believed this to be the subject that Jolene had been referring to."

[–][deleted]

you're gonna love this then:

Lt. Hermann on 11/5/05 @ a little after 11:17 AM at the Salvage Yard (just after Rav4 discovered)

MTSO Page 9: "Individuals were observed to the SW of the AVERY AUTO SALVAGE in a gravel pit area, near a gravel conveyer while officers were on the scene in the salvage yard. D.I. Schetter and I walked through the yard to this area where we made contact with 5 subjects - KRISTY HAZAERT, JOLENE BAIN, SHERRY LEMEROND, AUBREY WYGRALAK, and TRINITY ROSENOW. These subjects indicated they were friends of the HALBACH family and were assisting with search efforts. I identified the persons, and they were advised that at this time, the salvage yard area is a secured area and they needed to leave the general area."

Funny how she just happened to already be there and was actually at the salvage yard when the first officers were arriving to the scene after Pam's calls...

[–][deleted]

Unbelievable. I never saw that. For the life of me, after looking at all this for 6 months, I can't understand what all this means. Since Jolene was at TH residence telling about BC and the pictures on the November 4th to Pagel, while RH/SB were there with other friends, and then saw RH/SB that next morning to get search instructions, it is easy to jump to the conclusion that she knew the car would be found there because they told her. More people that know, the more people that will talk to KZ.

[–]CottageLover381

Hold the phone here! I didn't realize those 5 people were at Averys at the time either. Given Pagel's connections to Sturms and Halbachs, is this why RH and MH act so strangely?

Uh, uh, uh, we weren't on the property, that's totally false, it was members of our search party. I've always thought they meant Sturms.

I don't know what it means, I'm torn too, but it stinks. Two days later RH and MH on are the property for almost 2 hours.

Every. Single. Time I think this couldn't get any hinkier it gets worse.

[–][deleted]

Yes, I have children and I came from a very very conservative family. I do understand all that. I agree that there is probably nothing to the trunk photographs. But Pagel is a liar, or, at the very least, a hider of truth. IMHO somehow he knew that she was already dead, that they didnt need accurate flyover footage on the fourth while he was in the plane supervising, that the car would be found on the 5th by Pam Sturm. 

Once he engages in fabrication his character and intent is suspect. 

Furthermore, if my child is missing, I will never allow a gut instinct that she is dead prevail, certainly not from the highest LE authority after 4 days. Certainly not from a family friend who can move heaven and earth until she is found. People don't follow gut instincts when it is a family friend that is missing and honorable LE don't either.

[–]CottageLover381

I've tried very hard for months to accept some things, but as of right now, today, I no longer can.

They didn't notice she was gone. Didn't check hospitals or with highway patrol.

We're very close to our grown children. If they don't return a call or text within a reasonable amount of time, we're going to worry...because they always respond. Always.

There is something wrong with this picture. I'm willing to concede that now. We've been snowed in some way or for some reason.

Why?

[–]rush2head

Bottom line, The sheriff planted all the evidence and the state DOJ and PL cover it up! Time to lock them up. Or why have any laws at all!If the government will not arrest there Own!!

[–]Brofortdudue

The only people who knew that was a lie at the time it was stated were LEOs. Which by default sends the message to all LEOs that it is ok to lie about the investigation.

I would have put Pagel on the stand and asked him about this.

[–]c4virus[S]

Exactly. Pagel is in charge of the investigation and has zero integrity by publicly stating and acknowledging a very serious ethical standard and then completely violating it.

If he doesn't take his job seriously, why would anybody? How do you trust any of the evidence after such a lie? Most importantly, they were okay with rolling that dice...why? Either Pagel knew that a judge would not care OR the risk of a mistrial was worth having Manitowoc officers in play.

[–][deleted]

Same for wishing Pagel was on the stand.

Additionally, who did Pagel talk to at TH's resident the morning of the 4th and 5th; whose camera that was; the thought process for a lockdown.

He was there at the press conference.

Pagel is dirty (and I'm not meaning dirty like basketball "dirty" :).)

[–]baileybluetoo

I actually worked with Pagel years ago in the courthouse and I found him to be very professional. I agree that the trial was a mess but you need to be careful before calling someone dirty.

[–][deleted]

Really? He was there that morning at TH residence when they instructed PS where to go. He was there at the press conference about slitting a throat, raping and calling for help AND DID NOTHING. He ordered a lockdown of a facility to take fingerprints of innocent people, because they weren't proven guilty and they did not show any show any sign of fleeing. 

My husband had no stature like Pagel but he is a person who would never act like he did. BS. Stand down. I'm sick of the whitewash of Pagel and the smear campaign of the Avery's. He's dirty, come after me.

1. Dedering is at the Grand Chute Police Dept. in Outagamie County, dropping off Teresa’s laptop to Velie at 8 a.m. on 11/5.

2. Pagel and Dedering are at Teresa's house in St. John at 8:30 a.m. on 11/5 to send a test fax (which we have never seen). Dedering would had to not have spoken to Velie at ALL about the computer to arrive by 8:30 a.m. (it’s a 30-minute drive from GCPD to Teresa’s). I don't think they were at Teresa's right at 8:30 a.m., and they probably did see Pam there.

3. Pagel writes a report that says he, Wiegert and Dedering meet at station to discuss asking Steven if they can search ASY when they get the call from Pam, which was 10:29 a.m. on 11/5.

[–][deleted]

I'm sorry but I have changed my mind about Pagel now that I know he was there at TH's "testing a fax" at 8:30am when PS says she was there at 9 getting instructions from RH on going to the Avery yard. I believe, but it is only an opinion until someone states otherwise, that he met with PS, gave her a camera and instructions with RH about finding the car. She is married to his first cousin so they definitely know each other. PS's involvement is staged, in my opinion. I had to change my mind once I read the report that he, the sheriff, was there that morning to "test" a fax. I'm sorry that I have a different opinion and I truly respect your place in life and your opinion. I'm sorry.

[–]Lolabird61

I don't feel as if all LE was dirty in this investigation. In the beginning, especially during KK's graphic description of the alleged murder, I thought that Pagel appeared almost uncomfortable in that press conference. I attributed that to his possibly thinking KK's production was overkill. The more details I learn about Pagel's behavior, particularly his failure to enforce the 'conflict of interest protocol' the more doubt his integrity.

[–][deleted]

Why didn't he ask for help? He knew about the conflict but chose to ignore it. If he was out of his depth then he recognised it early on otherwise he wouldn't have allowed MTSO and in particular officers who were deposed in the Civil case anywhere near it.

He wasn't that overwhelmed that he could go out to check a fax machine or do a flyover. He's the Boss -- why is he doing the mundane workday stuff?

[–]Brofortdudue

He was relatively unaware of a lawsuit that caused a conflict of interest that caused him to make that exact statement??? There is no logic to that.

He said Manitowoc's only involvement was equipment. Past tense. He lied. Bald faced lied. There is no doubt, it's on video.

[–]Lolabird61

I still can't believe that Pagel was 'relatively' unaware of the civil lawsuit. Calumet is a neighboring county. Where I live in rural MI, just across the lake from this rural area in WI, if this was news in the next county, our sheriff sure as shit would know the scoop.

[–]onepieceofgumleft

     "Why risk having Manitowoc officers in play which could jeopardize convicting a supposed guilty person?"

Probably because Calumet officers would only go so far to facilitate the frame up ... And looking the other way while Lenk, Colborn and others did what they had to do, was as far as Calumet officers would go. Whatever helps them sleep at night.

[–]philipqnps

"provide resources" is another way of saying people. He mentions items and equipment but never retracts "provide resources." This is his alibi. Is he completely unscrupulous? Oh yeah.

[–]leiluhotnot

So RH had direct line to Sheriff Pagel and Remiker had direct line to Nikole Sturm. There were volunteer searchers (man and woman) 45 minutes before P.I. Pam showed up to find the car and no one saw them leave!

page 169 line 4-12

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Partial-Motion-Hearing-Part-1-2006Aug09.pdf

[–]Brofortdudue

Except his statement was past tense. He was stating what did happen. Not what he hoped was going to happen. And he knew that to be untrue.

It was a lie. A bald-faced lie, and it's on video.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/4i6v5c/the_fact_that_pagel_lied_about_manitowocs_role_in/

[–]Redditidiot1

 I once spent a lot of time looking at Pagel's actions from the first report of her missing and it seemed as if he was more looking out for her reputation and the Halbach family (financial records, photos, Bradley Czech), rather than leading a missing persons investigation.

I believe, though, he knew that the car would be found that morning, that the find was staged, if in fact he did talk with Sturm that morning.

[–]dorothydunnit

Good catch! I had read that before and never questioned how they knew where the vehicle was.

And that safety concern is a huge fake! When Sturm was on the stand she said she was immediately concerned for their safety when they found the RAV-4, BUT when you look at the phone transcripts its clear she's not scared at all. You can tell by the way she asks if she found the right car and then the way she talks while she's looking for the VIN.

And not only that, but Pagel, is clearly not concerned about her safety either. Here she just found the vehicle of the missing woman and you would think a person's first thought is that the perp is hanging around somewhere, maybe with TH herself dead or injured in a bush near by. But they don't even think of that.

If they were really concerned about her safety, they would have told her to stay on the line. But they weren't concerned. That whole thing about safety concerns was only made up afterwards to justify why they had asked if she had permission to be there

https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/7nr6ri/wiegerts_pretrial_testimony_excerpts_and_comments/

[–]MMonroe54[S]

     claimed in the report that he did a reverse search that led to SA's number, which can't be true.

Exactly. It's this blatant lie that shows the arrogance of this investigation, I think -- that Wiegert, among others, thought it didn't matter.

I've read that the report was written much later, but there's no excuse for that misinformation, I don't care when he wrote it.

Reading the pre trial testimony is revealing in that it shows how involved Pagel was. I'd always assumed he was probably just the figure head of the county of residence of the missing person and which assumed leadership of the investigation. But it now looks as if he may have led, ostensibly, anyway, the focus on the Avery property and SA.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/7nqyo8/wiegerts_pretrial_testimony_exerpts_and_comments/


















Emotions in check as Dassey jury weighs in
The Post-Crescent 
April 26, 2007

MANITOWOC - As the three guilty verdicts against BrendanDassey echoed Wednesday in the second-floor Manitowoc County courtroom, Teresa Halbach's relatives were their usual stoic selves.

Few watching would have realized their daughter and sister had been brutally raped and murdered by a teenager with an affinity for video games.

But like poker players, many of the Halbachs have their own tells, and emotions subtly showed when the verdicts were read.

Teresa's mother, Karen Halbach, let a tear fall, but caught it on her cheek and mustered a stiff upper lip. Teresa's brother, Tim, bounced his knee through the preamble to the jury's decision. Once the decision was public, his twitching stopped.

Mike Halbach, the family spokesman, held his normal pose — jaw clenched, eyes focused straight ahead.

After the hearing, Mike Halbach said his family was pleased with the jury's efforts. Their emotions ran the gamut.

"There certainly was some sadness, thanksgiving and relief," Halbach said. "We're glad to have that over with. All we have is a couple of sentencings to go to and then it's back to normal life. I guess ... normal life as we now know it, yes.

"That's without Teresa."

Teresa Halbach, a 25-year-old freelance photographer, was last seen on Halloween 2005 at Steven Avery's Mishicot-area property taking photographs of a minivan Avery wanted to sell. Halbach's sport utility vehicle was found among the wrecks in the Avery family salvage yard Nov. 5, 2005. Halbach's burned remains were discovered three days later.

Separate juries convicted Dassey and Avery of first-degree intentional homicide in Halbach's death. The Dane County jury that heard the evidence in Dassey's case also convicted him of second-degree sexual assault and mutilation of a corpse.

Mike Halbach said living through Avery's six-week trial and the eight days of testimony in the Dassey case were tough, but not overwhelming.

"The hard part is over with," he said. "Now it's rebuilding our lives, our new lives."

Halbach said his mother shed more tears outside the courtroom. "I think we all cried when we got back to our room," he said.

Halbach deflected questions probing if life without the possibility of release would be the only fitting sentence. Avery will be sentenced June 1 and Dassey will be sentenced Aug. 6.

Halbach said prison was the only answer, but said the judges in both cases are best suited to make that decision on the length of the term.

"Since (Avery and Dassey) took my sister's life, they need to be held responsible," he said. "I'm thankful for today, but I am more thankful for the future and better times.




Family of Teresa Halbach (mother Karen, stepfather/uncle Tom, brothers Tim and Mike, and sister Kelly) walks into courtroom before a full federal court hears the appeal for Brendan Dassey in Chicago on September 26, 2017 (click the image to watch the video by WGN)

CALUMET COUNTY SHERIFF JERRY PAGEL'S PRE-TRIAL TESTIMONY

Q. Were you, personally, out at the Avery Auto Salvage property on the days following this phone call, at home, on November 3?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. Each day?

A. Yes, I was there every day.

Q. Starting Friday, November 4.

A. No, the 5th.

Q. So, November 5th?

A. Yes.

Q. Saturday, November 5. And then how many days in a row did you remain, personally, out at the Avery Auto Salvage property?

A. I would go out their during the daylight hours and generally would leave anywhere between 7, 8, 9 at night.

Q. How long did that continue, Sheriff Pagel?

A. I was there the entire week that we were out there.

Q. And until the road was reopened and the searching was done?

A. That's correct.

Q. All right. Now, during that time that you were out there, during these long daylight hours, essentially, did you, personally, direct the activities of Lieutenant Lenk?

A. Did I, personally? How did you phrase it?

Q. Direct the activities of Lieutenant Lenk of the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department?

A. Not personally, no. It was -- Could have been done either through the command post. Again, they were there as a support group. So we would utilize our investigators, our officers, our personnel, along with agents from the Department of Criminal Investigation and individuals would then be assigned to those particular individuals who would be the lead people doing particular -- particular programs or parts of the investigation out there.

Q. Activities. All right. So you set up a command post?

A. Yes.

Q. You set that up in conjunction with the DCI?

A. Yes.

Q. There were other law enforcement agencies, also, at the command post?

A. Yes, there were other agencies involved in the investigation who were there for support and assistance.

Q. In the command post?

A. Not necessarily inside the command post. We tried to limit individuals who would be in the command post. We had a number of individuals who were out there on any particular day and we couldn't have all those individuals in the command post, but we would have the individuals who were going to be responsible for doing a particular activity, given their assignments.

Q. Okay. Physically, what was the command post?

A. Physically, what was it?

Q. Yeah.

A. It's our command trailer that we have at the Sheriff's Department?

Q. Like a Winnebago type?

A. It's a good size.

Q. Okay. But not everybody can crowd into those things?

A. Right.

Q. Okay. So people, law enforcement officers, would come in as necessary to participate in discussions?

A. Yes. Whoever we needed to discuss matters with would be invited into the command post and we would then discuss our information with them.

Q. The -- You ran this investigation in conjunction with DCI, you said?

A. Yes.

Q. And then, jointly, with a number of other agencies?

A. Yes.

Q. The FBI was involved?

A. Yes, the FBI.

Q. They were in the command post from time to time?

A. They were -- They were only out there for a short period of time. They arrived and indicated that if we needed their assistance for anything we should feel free to contact them. I think they might have been there personally, only a couple of hours.

Q. Okay. But they said, call if you need help?

A. Yes.

Q. The Wisconsin State Patrol was out there for a longer period of time?

A. They were there several days, yes.

Q. They had command officers in and out of the command post?

A. Yes, they would have had individuals in and out.

Q. The Two Rivers Police Department?

A. Yes.

Q. They had senior staff in and out of the command post?

A. I don't know if they would have had individuals in or out, specifically, or if they were just part of the support group.

Q. All right. But what you tried to do was run this as a collaborative, or a joint effort?

A. Yes.

Q. You consulted with Manitowoc County Sheriff's personnel?

A. Yes.

Q. They were in and out of the command post?

A. Yes.

Q. At least the ranking members were?

A. Yes.

Q. So you weren't necessarily, personally, directing things, but you were part of a group that was making conjunctive, or joint, or collaborative, investigative decisions, so that all the tasks got done?

A. Attempting to, yes.

Q. Right. Were you aware, on November 5, let's say, that Lieutenant Lenk and Sergeant Colborn of the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department recently had given depositions in Steven Avery's civil lawsuit?

A. No, I was not aware of that.

Q. When did you first learn that?

A. Today, in court.


Sheriff Kenneth Petersen testifies at the 2005 deposition of Steven Avery's $36 million lawsuit against Manitowoc County
Current Manitowoc County Sheriff Robert Hermann (left) was undersheriff when Teresa Halbach disappeared, and Ken Petersen (right) was sheriff (2001-2007; retired after 32 years in the department)

MANITOWOC COUNTY SHERIFF KEN PETERSEN'S PRE-TRIAL TESTIMONY

Q. Do you find, in general, that the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department operates as a well disciplined organization?

A. I believe so.

Q. That is, your directives are communicated, faithfully, to those below you?

A. Yes.

Q. And they are followed?

A. Yes.

Q. On Saturday, November 5, 2005, and just to orient you, that Teresa Halbach, we now know, was last seen on October 31, 2005. I don't expect that you necessarily know this, but I'm led to believe that she was reported missing on Thursday, November 3. All right. So I'm talking about two days later, on Saturday, November 5, 2005, at about 11:30 or 11:45 in the morning, a decision was made to transfer control of the investigation into her disappearance, and circumstances surrounding it, to the Calumet County Sheriff's Department and to DCI, or the Division of Criminal Investigation; is that true?

A. Yes.

Q. That decision to transfer control was made by you?

A. Indirectly, yes.

Q. You say indirectly, the primary focus of the investigation was in Manitowoc County, within the metes and bounds of Manitowoc County, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. To fall within your jurisdiction?

A. Correct.

Q. Your department had been involved in early steps in the investigation of Ms Hallbach's disappearance?

A. Correct.

Q. Maybe you would explain, then, for me, what you mean when you say, indirectly, the decision that Saturday morning was made by you?

A. I had been out of town the previous week. I was out in Seattle, Washington. And I arrived home probably 10:30, quarter to 11, Saturday morning. And that decision to transfer had already been made, I assume, by the inspector. I never inquired. I agreed with the way it was going, so I didn't interfere.

Q. Okay. I need to explore that just a little bit further to nail down timing. When you say you arrived home, do you mean physically at your home?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. You didn't go in to work immediately that Saturday morning?

A. No.

Q. Had you been in contact with the office during the course of that week in Seattle?

A. No.

Q. So you really were --

A. The first I heard --

Q. -- out of loop so to speak?

A. Yeah. The first I heard about the Halbach case was when a reporter called me Saturday after 11.

Q. Do you recall about when, after 11?

A. About 11:15, somewhere in that general area.

Q. Okay. And this was entirely news to you at that point?

A. Yes.

Q. You got in contact with Mr. Hermann?

A. Yes.

Q. Inspector Hermann?

A. Right.

NOTE: Todd Hermann followed his brother Robert Hermann, current sheriff of Manitowoc County, into law enforcement and was deputy inspector of operations for the sheriff's department until he retired early at age 50 in 2017 (their father also was in law enforcement, and the family runs Cleveland Auto Sales and Salvage):
Todd Hermann, the deputy inspector of the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department -- third in command of the entire agency -- has left the county by taking an early retirement. He recently turned 50. 
The Cleveland, Wis. native is the younger brother of three-term Manitowoc County Sheriff Rob Hermann, who was elected by the voters in 2006 in a race against Deputy Andy Colborn. After his brother took office, Todd Hermann was promoted from one of the lieutenant positions to third in command. From 2007 through 2016, Todd Hermann was in charge of the traffic patrol division and the detective bureau for Manitowoc County.

Todd Hermann was one of the prosecution witnesses utilized by special prosecutor Ken Kratz during the 2007 murder trial against Steven Avery. His boss, Inspector Gregg Schetter, gave Hermann a special recognition letter praising him for exemplary work on the Steven Avery murder case.

Last September, Todd Hermann declined to comment when I [John Ferak] reached him and asked him several questions prior to publication of my three-day-long investigative series that ran across USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin examining the unsolved hit-and-run death of 17-year-old Ricky Hochstetler. The 1999 pedestrian homicide along a county road south of Manitowoc at bar-closing time has involved longstanding suspicions of a Manitowoc sheriff's department cover-up. Vehicle damage showed that the intoxicated motorist may have been heading toward the village of Cleveland.


Todd Hermann was inspector and third in command at Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department at the time of Teresa Halbach's disappearance

Q. Do you remember about when you did that?

A. It had been shortly after the reporter called.

Q. I will bet. By telephone?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And at that point, he told you that he had already decided to shift the primary responsibility for the investigation to the two other law enforcement agencies I described?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he tell you when he had made that decision?

A. No. He had talked about conferring with Corp Counsel and that was what he advised. Normally we follow his advice.

Q. You agreed with that advice?

A. Yes.

Q. You had a discussion with him on his reasoning?

A. Yes.

Q. And in a nutshell -- and you are free to disagree or explain this -- but in a nutshell, the reason he described to you, after consulting with Corporation Counsel, was to avoid the appearance or the reality of a conflict of interest?

A. Correct.

Q. Because at least a person of interest at that point was Steven Avery?

A. Yes.

Q. You were told that?

A. No, they didn't give me any specific suspects or people of interest. They merely stated that the vehicle had been found on the Avery Salvage Yard property.

Q. Correct. And what further information did you need, or ask for, or inquire about, to decide whether, in fact, there was a conflict of interest or the appearance of one?

A. I didn't need anything more than that at that point.

Q. Avery Auto Salvage Yard, car found, that was enough?

A. Sure.

Q. The reason you perceived, or you agreed with Inspector Hermann's assessment, that there was a potential conflict of interest, is that at that time a civil lawsuit by Steven Avery was pending against Manitowoc County and some former officials?

A. Correct.

Q. That was a civil lawsuit for 36 million dollars in damages?

A. Correct.

Q. It related to the 1985 conviction that you and I have discussed this morning?

A. Correct.

Q. Did you see that as a real and present conflict of interest on November 5?

A. I don't see it so much as a conflict of interest, I would say a prudent decision just to keep accusation free.

Q. All right. And what did you -- what did you understand the decision to be, in terms of the shifting of responsibility?

A. That the Calumet County Sheriff would run the investigation and I would pay for it.

Q. Okay. In addition to paying for the investigation, what role was the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department to play, if any?

A. Support.

Q. What does support mean?

A. Logistics, equipment, whatever they needed, manpower.

Q. So the Calumet County Sheriff, Mr. Pagel, was to communicate with you, or your department?

A. As far as?

Q. Logistics, support, manpower, whatever he needed?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. So he would request it of you, or someone in your department?

A. Yes.

Q. And then you would provide it?

A. Yes.

Q. The Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department, in that way, continued to play an active role in the investigation into Ms Halbach's disappearance?

A. Yes, I believe so.

Q. You monitored the progress of that investigation?

A. No, I have never seen a report on the actual investigation.

Q. All right.

A. I have gotten copies of bills, we have had conferences on security, that type of thing.

Q. The guy in charge usually gets the bills.

A. Yeah.

Q. But in your department, reports generated by deputies, or detectives, or sergeants, or lieutenants, don't necessarily all come up to your desk?

A. Most of them do.

Q. And this one may have or haven't?

A. Have not.

Q. Why?

A. I divorced myself from the early investigation.

Q. You personally?

A. Correct.

Q. All right. When did that happen, Sheriff Petersen?

A. On that Saturday.

Q. Immediately?

A. Right.

Q. Okay. Who did you leave as the liaison, or the contact person, or the reviewing person within your department, for your department's role in the investigation?

A. Deputy Inspector Schetter.

Q. With a formal directive to him of some kind?

A. No.

Q. With a conversation?

A. No, I didn't talk to him. He may have talked to the inspector, he didn't talk to me.

Q. Oh. Okay. Do you know whether someone directed Deputy Inspector Schetter to play a reviewing role?

A. No.

Q. How do you know he is?

A. Because he was out at the scene with the sheriff and his people.

Q. All right. And who is getting the reports generated by the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department on the Halbach investigation and, ultimately, the arrest and prosecution of Mr. Avery?

A. I would believe Calumet County Sheriff's Department would.

Q. Not Deputy Inspector Schetter?

A. Well, they would still be in our files, there would be copies there -- or originals there. The copies would be -- would be shipped.

Q. All right. I will see if I can do this efficiently, and the problem is, you may not know some of the facts I'm going to suggest to you.

A. Okay.

Q. Because it sounds like I have seen Manitowoc Sheriff's Department reports that you probably have not. All right?

A. Sure.

Q. But let me suggest these things and we'll see what you know and what you don't know, or what you dispute. All right. The first law enforcement officer to speak with -- speak personally with Steven Avery about Teresa Halbach, which was on November 3, was Sergeant Andrew Colborn of your department; is that right?

A. Don't know.

Q. One way or the other?

A. Yeah, don't know.

Q. You don't dispute that?

A. Yeah, I don't know.

Q. All right. The first law enforcement officers to search Mr. Avery's trailer, this time with consent, on Friday, November 4, were two members of the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department, Lieutenant Lenk and Detective Remiker?

A. I believe they were with a Calumet County officer.

Q. You think they may have been with a Calumet County officer?

A. I believe so.

Q. But you know that Lenk and Remiker --

A. Had been at the trailer.

Q. -- did a consent search of the trailer on Friday, November 4th?

A. Yes, I believe so.

Q. On Saturday, November 5, the first law enforcement officer, as opposed to citizen, unsworn citizen, to see Teresa Halbach's Toyota Rav 4, was a member of your department, Detective Remiker?

A. I don't know that.

Q. You don't dispute it, you just don't know one way or the other?

A. I don't know.

Q. All right. The first search of Mr. Avery's trailer, with a search warrant, occurred later on Saturday, November 5. And that involved, again, Detective Remiker of your department and Calumet County Investigator Gary Steier, or is that something you know?

A. That, I believe, is what I was referring to.

Q. All right. The first law enforcement officers that day to collect any suspected blood in Mr. Avery's trailer, or on it, was, again, Detective Remiker of your department, correct?

A. It's possible, yes.

Q. He gave that to Sergeant Colborn of your department?

A. That I don't know.

Q. Don't dispute, but just don't know?

A. Yeah.

Q. The detached garage between Mr. Avery's trailer and Barb Yanda's trailer, I believe first was searched pursuant to warrant on Sunday, November 6. Were you aware that Detective Remiker and Lieutenant Lenk and Sergeant Colborn, along with a Calumet County deputy, were the first law enforcement officers to search the detached garage?

MR. FALLON: Excuse me, your Honor, I'm going to impose an objection on this particular line of questioning as -- and the reason is, the previous testimony of Sheriff Petersen indicating that as of earlier that day, 11:30, 11:45, control of the investigation was passed. And given that fact, the fact that there may have been some logistical or support personnel provided by the Manitowoc County  Sheriff's Department to assist in these searches or contacts, was all under the control and direction of Sheriff Pagel at Calumet County. Thus, this particular line of questioning, I would suggest to the Court, is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Mr. Strang.

ATTORNEY STRANG: Let me ask some clarifying questions, because I'm not necessarily in disagreement with the factual portion of Mr. Fallon's statement, and I will clarify that.

Q. (By Attorney Strang)~ Any actions that members of your department took after, let's say 11:30, on  Saturday, November 5, you believe would have been taken with the knowledge, or under the direction, at the request, however you want to put it, of either the Calumet County Sheriff's Department or the DCI? 

A. Correct.

Q. That is, neither you, nor Inspector Hermann, nor anybody above the level of the people in your department involved, were directing, or controlling, or supervising the steps of those people?

A. Correct.

Q. My -- And I think you and I are in agreement, I'm not trying to suggest otherwise, my questions really are just inquiring into who the boots on the ground were, who the people were, not who's  directing them, or telling them what to do and not to do; do you understand me that way?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. So with that limitation, Lenk, Remiker and Colborn, along with a Calumet deputy -- Calumet County deputy, were the first to search the detached garage on Sunday, November 6th? 

MR. FALLON: I'm going to renew the objection. I understand counsel's point, but I still fail to see the relevance as it pertains to the motion to dismiss and/or the motion to exclude.

ATTORNEY STRANG: It bears more on the motion to exclude. I have moved to exclude not just Sheriff Petersen from further involvement in this case, supervising the jury, or in a logistical or support role to the Court, but have moved to exclude the entire department from providing that logistical or support role. So, I think this has a bearing, the involvement of others in the department clearly has a bearing on that motion, your Honor.

THE COURT: I believe it relates to the motion to exclude, so I'm going to allow it.

ATTORNEY STRANG: Do you recall my last question?

THE WITNESS: No.

Q. (By Attorney Strang)~ Sunday, November 6, detached garage, first law enforcement officers to search, Lenk, Remiker, Colborn, and a deputy from Calumet whose has a name, and that's Dan Kucharski? 

A. I wouldn't know who searched it. 

Q. Don't know one way or the other?

A. No, I don't know who was in the garage. 

Q. Don't dispute that the three Manitowoc people were among the first law enforcement people to enter the garage? 

A. It's possible.

PRE-TRIAL TESTIMONY

Sturm - page 19
Fassbender - page 40
Kucharski - page 79
Sturdivant - page 101
Eisenberg - page 124
Culhane - page 145
Petersen - page 403
Pagel - page 444
Emily Matesic, reporter - page 672
Jennifer Kolbusz, Channel 5 - page 714
Lt. John Byrnes - page 762
Wiegert - page 843, Buting cross page 851
Sturm - page 903
Wiegert - page 983
Remiker - page 1011
Hillegas - page 1039
Remiker - page 1102
Earl Avery - page 1140
Lenk - page 1165
O'Neill - page 1233
Steven Glynn - page 1286
O'Neill - page 1313
Remiker - page 1344
Colborn - page 1378
Fassbender - page 1397

Sheriff Jerry Pagel, Calumet County Sheriff’s Department

Sheriff Pagel clearly made this statement during a televised press conference: “The Manitowoc County Sheriff Department’s role in this investigation was to provide resources for us when they were needed. As we needed items on the property to conduct searches they provided that piece of equipment, and that’s their role, and only role in this investigation.”

Unless the words resources, items and equipment are code for Sheriff Kenneth Peterson, Lieutenant James Lenk, and Sergeant Andrew L. Colburn, that statement is not even close to factual or accurate.

30% chance Mr. Pagel will do the right thing.

Sheriff Kenneth Petersen, Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Department
Served from 1979-2007

Lying pitiful coward. Also delusional, deranged and the main conspirator.

0% chance this lying deranged coward will do the right thing.

Robert C. Hermann, Current Sheriff of Manitowoc County

In an interview with the Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter, Sheriff Robert Hermann criticized the objectivity of the series, calling it "skewed chicken." Hermann conceded that he had not watched the series.

Saying this was a mistake by Sheriff Hermann. We all make mistakes and simply saying, I’m sorry takes a lot of the pain away. I listed Sheriff Hermann as the most important person to fix the problem. He is the current Sheriff for a reason, and before I spoke with him I viewed the probability of Sheriff Hermann helping at 60%. After one phone call with Sheriff Hermann I now believe there is an 80% chance Sheriff Robert Hermann will do the right thing.

80% chance Mr. Hermann will do the right thing.

Dear Sheriff Robert C. Hermann:

As I told you via our nice phone conversation, it’s time to really look at the Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey case with an open mind, and critiquing the case negatively is not something you should be doing.

You are the one that has the power and ability to restore faith in the system, and bring justice to everyone that was denied what “We the People” deserve.

You can undo the destruction that some very bad people caused, and you hold the key to doing the right thing, and ending this fairly quickly. You can help Teresa’s family and countless people get the justice they deserve.

Things happen for a reason Robert. There is a reason you are the Sheriff now, and there is a reason we had a very good phone conversation. You hold all the cards, and you can stand up for what is right for everyone involved in the great state of Wisconsin.

The legal system will make mistakes and it takes men and women to admit there were mistakes and fix them at any cost.

Holding a simple press conference and getting the ball rolling is the first step, and the right first move. I think I speak for many people that hope you have what it takes.

PavlishConsulting.com

 There's a new sheriff in town: Pagel brings three decades of experience
By Myrna Collins, Post-Crescent 
December 28, 2002 

CHILTON -- He grew up on a farm outside Chilton, put in time as a deejay in North Dakota and worked as a radio newsman in Oshkosh.

But law enforcement is where Jerry Pagel's heart lies, and on Jan. 6, the 52-year-old Calumet County Sheriff's Department veteran steps into the job he has been preparing for since 1972.

He'll be sworn in as sheriff, and his predecessor couldn't be more pleased.

"As an investigator, his work has been excellent. He is accurate, and he gets things done," said retiring Sheriff Oscar Beilke, whose decision not to seek a new term in November cleared the way for Pagel's run.

The two have worked together for 28 years, starting when Pagel was a patrol deputy and Beilke a newcomer to the sheriff's department. They worked on many cases together as investigators before Beilke made his successful run for sheriff six years ago.

Pagel announced his candidacy the day after Beilke announced his retirement. He ran unopposed.

Now, he's focused firmly on a future that promises more technology, more complicated crimes, tighter budgets and lots of meetings.

"I was surprised by the number of meetings you need to attend. And if you don't go, you could lose out on something," he said.

Continuing education for himself and others in the department -- starting with training in police science -- is essential, Pagel said. "If you don't keep up with the technology and developments you hurt yourself and the entire department."

The demand for constant schooling is a far cry from the casual attitude that existed when Pagel joined the department. His uncle, Ted Pagel Sr., was Calumet County's sheriff in the 1940s, and his cousin, Ted Pagel Jr., was sheriff in the 1970s.

"I was radio operator and jailer -- the two jobs were together then -- and it wasn't a sworn position. If dinners arrived for the prisoners, I'd be delivering them in the jail and the radio wasn't covered, or if something was happening on the radio, the dinners would sit and get cold before I could deliver them."

Today, radio operations and jailers are two different specialties.

Pagel will be heading a staff of about 50.

His first big challenge will be familiarizing himself with all aspects of FoxComm, a four-county emergency services network expected to be up and running in the spring for Calumet, Outagamie, Winnebago and Brown counties. Pagel recently was named to FoxComm's Fiscal Advisory Board.

He also will be trying to find a way to increase use of Calumet County's Crime Stoppers program, through which the public can leave anonymous crime tips at 920-849-1477.

"You know there are people out there who know who committed crimes. Most criminals can't help bragging about what they have done," he said. "I want to find out why more people are not calling us."

Throughout his years as an investigator, Pagel was known for having exceptional interviewing skills, according to Dist. Atty. Ken Kratz. "He often could get a confession just by talking to a suspect," Kratz said.

Polishing this skill in his crew is also high on Pagel's agenda. "It's a lot more efficient to get a confession than to have to go through a trial," he said.

When he's not on the job, Pagel likes to travel with Mary, his wife of 28 years, and spend time with his three daughters, one granddaughter "and another grandchild on the way," he said. He golfs and spends time woodworking.

Among the family members who will witness his swearing-in on Jan. 6 are his parents. Ninety-four-year-old John Pagel and 88-year-old Vivian Pagel were actively involved in their son's campaign.

"I think it's neat that my parents will be there to see me take the oath," Pagel said.

NOVEMBER 3, 2005 TIMELINE


RYAN HILLEGAS' PHONE CALLS WITH SCOTT, KELLY AND TINA AFTER TERESA IS REPORTED MISSING (CENTRAL TIME ZONE)


In Fassbender's report about the voicemails left for Teresa on her Cingular cell phone, he reported that a message was left was by Tina on November 2nd at 7:23 PM, who was calling to "chat." Truepeoplesearch.com lists the number as belonging to Tina Mills, a former college classmate of Teresa Halbach.

Teresa Halbach's Friends Still Think About Her Every Day: 'She Didn't Have a Bad Bone in Her Body'
By PEOPLE Magazine
January 15, 2016

The Story Behind the Story: Remembering Teresa Halbach

Jess Cagle remembers the victim at the center of the Netflix hit Making a Murderer

Eight years after Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey were convicted in the brutal murder of 25-year-old Teresa Halbach, a new Netflix series has thousands asking: Are the right men in prison? Subscribe now for shocking new details about the controversial conviction, only in PEOPLE!

Enrolling as a sophomore at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, Beth entered her first photography class with trepidation, guessing that everyone there already knew each other. Then she met fellow student Teresa Halbach.

“She made me feel like I fit in,” Beth, who asked that her last name not be used, tells PEOPLE. “Honestly, it was her smile. She made you feel like you belonged just by her nature. She had a very adventurous spirit, and she made you want to come along with her.”

Teresa’s friends tell PEOPLE they can’t forget the bright light that was extinguished when Teresa, then 25, was murdered in 2005. Now, as Teresa returns to the headlines thanks to the Netflix series Making a Murderer, her friends are rallying around her memory to ensure her life isn’t overlooked by the growing controversy around her convicted killer, Steven Avery, who claims he was framed for the crime.

“She went out of her way to make you feel special,” says Tina Mills, 35, another former college classmate. “People were inspired by her and people wanted to be like her. She just had a way of listening that made you feel comforted and at ease. She made people love her, and obviously she had a lot of love to give away, too.”

She adds: “Caring, loving, any good quality you could come up with, that was Teresa.”

Andy Behrendt, 35, now a Lutheran pastor, was editor-in-chief of the university’s student newspaper in 2001-2002 when Teresa was a staff photographer. “She just radiated happiness and life,” he says. “Even after she died so tragically – and here we are again, faced with this awful, awful tragedy 10 years later – I still can’t picture her without a smile on her face. In the end, nothing can take that away.”

Teresa was a bridesmaid in her friend Katie Uttech’s 2004 wedding. The two also had met in college. Uttech remembers nights out with Teresa singing karaoke, cooking together, a fun driving trip from Green Bay to Kansas City accompanied by Beatles music, and sitting in front of the TV together to watch Friends.

“She was always very positive,” says Uttech. “I don’t ever remember her being mad about anything. She just had this positivity about herself. She didn’t have a bad bone in her body. She just enjoyed life, she enjoyed new experiences.”

And as Teresa turned her passion for photography into a profession, “she could just make people relax and smile, and she took great pictures,” says Uttech, who still has brochures and magnets for the Photography by Teresa business that her friend started. “She was great at making memories.”

It was while working as a freelance photographer for an Auto Trader magazine that investigators say Teresa went on assignment to Avery’s residence, and was never seen again.

“I try not to think of the story of what happened to her,” says Uttech, who has made a choice not to watch the Netflix series. “This Netflix thing is not something that’s made up,” she says. “This is somebody’s sister and somebody’s daughter and somebody’s friend and somebody’s cousin. This is real.

“It’s really easy for somebody to watch this show and come up with opinions, and everybody’s entitled to their opinions,” she says. “I can’t do anything but say who Teresa was, and she was a really great person.”

 She adds: “I just miss her not being around and not being able to make more memories together.”

TERESA HALBACH'S CALLS WITH RYAN, SCOTT, KELLY AND TINA BEGINNING OCTOBER 20, 2005 (UTC)



Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

40 comments:

  1. magiclougieSaturday, January 13, 2018

    Pam is Sheriff Pagel's cousin by marriage. She is also Teresa Halbach's cousin on her father's side.

    Interestingly, even though she was a PI and 1st cousin to TH's father and stepfather, none of the Halbach's reached out to PoG about helping with the search party. She saw it on the news and called her cousin, TH's aunt. PoG claims when her Haibach cousin called her back, the cousin told her the search party was meeting at TH's farmhouse around 9am. That's really strange since everyone else in the search party understood the meeting time to be 6am (see RH's testimony, p.166). Maybe after talking to her Haibach cousin, PoG felt her super-duper PI skills were being under utilized so she called her husband's cousin, Sheriff Pagel to offer her services and he told her to meet at 9am...

    Pam Sturm's testimony:

    JB: By the way, do you know Sheriff Pagel, personally?

    PS: No, I don't.

    JB: Before this case, had you ever met him?

    PS: No, sir.

    JB: Or talked with him at all?

    PS: No, sir.

    14 Q. You were just helping out as a volunteer for the
    15 Halbach family at that time?
    16 A. Yes.
    17 Q. And you said that Ryan, when you met on Saturday
    18 morning, Ryan Hillegas gave you a direct phone
    19 number for Sheriff Pagel?
    20 A. Yes.
    21 Q. So he had -- Evidently he had Sheriff Pagel's
    22 direct line?
    23 A. It was either the direct line or the line into
    24 that department.
    25 Q. Well, when you called it, it got right to Sheriff
    238
    1 Pagel's voice on his voice mail, right?
    2 A. Voice mail, yes.
    3 Q. Okay.
    4 A. But we did talk to the dispatch too.
    5 Q. I know, that's later, though. The number you
    6 called just put you right to Sheriff Pagel's
    7 voice mail, correct?
    8 A. Yes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. magiclougieSaturday, January 13, 2018

    Pagel pre-trial (page 444)

    1 Q. Sheriff Pagel, at any point, at least prior to
    2 the 9th of November, was a specific suspect
    3 identified?
    4 A. No, there was not. In fact, we -- it was a wide
    5 open investigation.
    6 Q. On the 9th of November, Steven Avery was arrested
    7 on a charge of felon in possession of a firearm;
    8 do you remember holding a press conference
    9 announcing that fact on the 9th?
    10 A. Yes, I do.
    11 Q. Do you recall any discussions on the 9th
    12 regarding limiting your comments to the facts
    13 that were contained within that public document,
    14 that is the Criminal Complaint?
    15 A. Yes, that information was going to be public
    16 knowledge in the Criminal Complaint and it
    17 pertained to the felon in possession. We still
    18 had a missing person investigation.
    19 Q. Sheriff Pagel, later in that week, between the
    20 9th and the 11th of November, do you recall
    21 receiving specific questions, and even at the
    22 press conferences, obtaining inquiries, regarding
    23 allegations made by Mr. Avery and his family,
    24 regarding being set up or framed?
    25 A. Yes, I do. In fact, I would be receiving phone
    53
    1 calls from the media, who indicated that they had
    2 received information from either Mr. Avery or
    3 members of his family. And they were making
    4 inquiries about these -- this information that
    5 they were receiving. And, again, I would not
    6 elaborate on those type of things at that
    7 particular time, via phone contacts.
    8 Any members of the media would be
    9 informed that any information that was going to
    10 be released would be released at a news
    11 conference to be determined or announced later.
    12 Q. All right. That brings me, then, to questions
    13 regarding a press conference held on the 11th of
    14 November, Friday, the 11th; do you recall that
    15 press conference?
    16 A. Yes, I do.
    17 Q. Do you recall specific information being
    18 released, as it related to public questions, or
    19 direct questions, from the Avery's, as to being
    20 set up or framed?
    21 A. Yes. Again, we felt that we owed it to the
    22 public, to insure them that there was no
    23 information, no evidence gathered through the
    24 investigation, tending to indicate that there was
    25 any type of conspiracy theory in effect here.
    54
    1 Q. Now, this may be a little awkward since I'm not a
    2 witness in this case, but I'm going to ask you
    3 about conversations that you and I had. Do you
    4 recall specific conversations with me regarding
    5 limiting, or being very careful about what was
    6 disseminated, to insure a fair trial for
    7 Mr. Avery?
    8 A. Yes, I do. Again, we would have conferences
    9 daily to discuss what was going to be
    10 disseminated. You also indicated that it's your
    11 policy, once charges are filed, that the
    12 information disseminated to the media would
    13 cease, and that it would be the joint thought
    14 here that anything after that point would not be
    15 disseminated, there would be no more conferences.
    16 Q. You are aware that at some point, in fact, on the
    17 5th of November, Judge Fox, from Manitowoc
    18 County, appointed me as Special Prosecutor in
    19 this case; is that correct?
    20 A. That is correct.

    ReplyDelete
  3. magiclougieSaturday, January 13, 2018

    22 Q. Several months after Mr. Avery's Criminal
    23 Complaint was filed, I think it was the 14th of
    24 November when it was filed, but in early March,
    25 March 1st and 2nd, did you become aware of a
    56
    1 second suspect having been arrested regarding the
    2 homicide and related charges with Ms Halbach?
    3 A. Yes, I did.
    4 Q. And who was that person?
    5 A. Brendan Dassey.
    6 Q. On March 1st, do you recall holding a joint news
    7 conference informing the public?
    8 ATTORNEY STRANG: Leading?
    9 ATTORNEY KRATZ: I'm sorry, what was that?
    10 ATTORNEY STRANG: Leading.
    11 ATTORNEY KRATZ: Oh.
    12 Q. (By Attorney Kratz)~ I could ask, what day did
    13 you hold the news conference that you informed
    14 the public of Mr. Dassey's involvement?
    15 A. I believe it was March 1st.

    [...]

    16 Q. All right. Then, do you recall a Criminal
    17 Complaint being drafted and filed against
    18 Mr. Dassey?
    19 A. Yes, I do.
    20 Q. Then on -- Do you recall another, in fact, the
    21 last press conference jointly held in this case?
    22 A. Yes, I do.
    23 Q. Do you remember when that was?
    24 A. That would have been the following day. I
    25 believe it was March 2nd.
    57
    1 Q. Sheriff Pagel, prior to that news conference,
    2 were you aware of the details; that is, were you
    3 aware of the information that would be included
    4 in that public document, in that Criminal
    5 Complaint, against Mr. Dassey?
    6 A. Yes, I was.
    7 Q. Do you recall having conversations with me about
    8 what information should be released and how to
    9 release that information?
    10 A. Yes, you had indicated that the information that
    11 was going to be released was information that was
    12 in the document. And we had -- a decision had to
    13 be made how it was going to be released, or what
    14 was going to be released. And it was felt that
    15 we would, again, try to control the information
    16 that was going to be released, rather than having
    17 the news media take the report and then go
    18 wherever they were going to go with it.
    19 It was a decision that was difficult to
    20 do, but was ultimately decided that we needed to
    21 provide the information to the public and, again,
    22 control what information was disseminated.
    23 Q. Without limiting the information in that news
    24 conference, what did you believe would happen if
    25 that document was simply released to the public?
    58
    1 A. Personally, I felt it was going to be helter
    2 skelter. That the news media was going to take
    3 it and go in all directions with it. And, again,
    4 we would probably lose control over what was --
    5 what was gathered by the news media if we just
    6 gave them the article and gave them the Criminal
    7 Complaint, I mean, and let them go from there.
    8 And, again, we felt that we needed to control the
    9 information.
    10 Q. You had mentioned sensitivity to the Halbach
    11 family, to the victims, especially regarding that
    12 disturbing information. Were meetings held,
    13 before the 2nd of March, to disclose to the
    14 family what would be included in that document?
    15 A. Yes. We had met the night before, with them, and
    16 provided them with the information that the
    17 investigators had gathered. And that provided
    18 them with the information that was going to be in
    19 the Criminal Complaint.
    20 Q. At any time, Sheriff Pagel, were there
    21 attempts -- and I can only ask you
    22 individually -- but were there attempts by you to
    23 influence any potential jurors, or to in any way
    24 prejudice Mr. Avery through this criminal
    25 process?
    59
    1 A. None. In fact, this is, again, why we tried to
    2 control the information that was released, so
    3 that we could control any prejudicial
    4 information, any inflammatory information, so as
    5 to prevent, as much as possible, any pretrial
    6 prejudicial publicity.
    7 Q. And, again, that's consistent with other cases
    8 that you and I have worked on; is that correct?
    9 A. That is correct.
    10 ATTORNEY KRATZ: That's all the questions I
    11 have of Sheriff Pagel. Thank you, Judge.

    ReplyDelete
  4. magiclougieSaturday, January 13, 2018

    22 A. What I was referring to was November 5th, the day
    23 that her vehicle was found on the Avery property.
    24 Q. What was it that was so hugely interesting about
    25 her car being found?
    63
    1 A. The fact that Steven Avery had garnered a large
    2 amount of media interest concerning his release
    3 from prison, for charges that he had been alleged
    4 to have committed, and the vehicle being found on
    5 Avery property. You didn't have to be a rocket
    6 scientist to know that the media was, again,
    7 going to be interested in this.
    8 Q. Steven Avery was a man you knew from the media
    9 before November 5?
    10 A. That is correct.
    11 Q. You were familiar, at least with the general
    12 outlines of his wrongful conviction and eventual
    13 exoneration?
    14 A. Yes.
    15 Q. Release from prison?
    16 A. Yes.
    17 Q. Were you aware that he had filed a big lawsuit
    18 against Manitowoc County over that series of
    19 events?
    20 A. Prior to what?
    21 Q. November 5.
    22 A. No, I was not aware of any lawsuit prior to that.
    23 Q. But you were aware of Avery and you thought, gee,
    24 this will attract the media?
    25 A. Yes.
    64
    1 Q. All right. Now, that's two days after Ms Halbach
    2 is reported missing. And I guess it's as early
    3 as that evening, November 3, in which you
    4 realized, look, we need some public assistance
    5 here, and the way to accomplish that is by using
    6 the media?
    7 A. Yes, we felt that the information should be
    8 disseminated concerning Teresa Halbach, and her
    9 disappearance, and the fact that we were looking
    10 for her and the vehicle.
    11 Q. Giving information directly to the media was not
    12 the only strategy you employed to get the word
    13 out to the public?
    14 A. I guess I don't know.
    15 Q. For example, you had a telephone number, that you
    16 encouraged members of the public to call and
    17 encouraged investigators to share with the
    18 public?
    19 A. Our local Sheriff's Department number, yes, or
    20 tip number.
    21 Q. Right, sort of a dedicated line, not for this
    22 case, but for tips, or for information from the
    23 public?
    24 A. That is correct.
    25 Q. You got that out to the public?
    65
    1 A. Yes.

    ReplyDelete
  5. magiclougieSaturday, January 13, 2018

    2 Q. You had members of your department going to
    3 friends and family members of Teresa Halbach's in
    4 the early days of this search?
    5 A. Yes, most definitely.
    6 Q. In part, to ask them when they had last seen her,
    7 and what information they might have, but also,
    8 in part, to encourage them to talk to others?
    9 A. Yes, to try to garner any information we could
    10 from them, again, when was the last time you had
    11 seen her, and garner any information we could
    12 about Teresa.
    13 Q. Sure. And to get the network going so to speak,
    14 might ask a friend who else do you know she may
    15 have talked to, or called, or been e-mailing, or
    16 appointments she may have had, things like that.
    17 A. Yeah, would be a typical missing person
    18 investigation.
    19 Q. You also took some other steps that would be
    20 publicly visible but controlled. I mean, for
    21 example, did you -- did you rent an airplane or
    22 make arrangements for an airplane at some point?
    23 A. Yes, that was done on November 4th.
    24 Q. Went to an aviation service and took a plane up
    25 in the air?
    66
    1 A. Yes.
    2 Q. And that involved circling a good deal, I assume,
    3 over parts of Manitowoc County?
    4 A. Manitowoc, Brown, Calumet. I don't think we got
    5 down into Sheboygan, but basically a three county
    6 area.
    7 Q. Sure. And at fairly low altitude?
    8 A. Yes.
    9 Q. That, you knew, at least would attract some
    10 public attention and raise the profile that
    11 people should be on the lookout for a missing and
    12 possibly endangered person?
    13 A. The fact that we used the airplane?
    14 Q. Yeah.
    15 A. No. That was basically a search to try and to
    16 locate her vehicle. We knew that her vehicle was
    17 missing. And we were trying to locate her
    18 vehicle, or anything which could be of assistance
    19 in the missing person investigation.
    20 Q. Okay. So, is that why you only used the plane on
    21 Friday, November 4?
    22 A. Yes.
    23 Q. There was -- Once you found the car, the Toyota,
    24 there was no need for further flyovers or that
    25 kind of visible activity?
    67
    1 A. There were other flyovers done after, yes. There
    2 were the use of other planes and helicopters
    3 throughout the search for Teresa.
    4 Q. The search continued until -- well, I mean it
    5 continued beyond this, but on November 8, some
    6 bone fragments were found; does that sound right?
    7 A. That could be the date, yes.
    8 Q. All right. Which would have been a Tuesday?
    9 A. That would be about right, yes.
    10 Q. Were you, personally, out at the Avery Auto
    11 Salvage property on the days following this phone
    12 call, at home, on November 3?
    13 A. Yes, I was.
    14 Q. Each day?
    15 A. Yes, I was there every day.
    16 Q. Starting Friday, November 4.
    17 A. No, the 5th.
    18 Q. So, November 5th?
    19 A. Yes.
    20 Q. Saturday, November 5. And then how many days in
    21 a row did you remain, personally, out at the
    22 Avery Auto Salvage property?
    23 A. I would go out their during the daylight hours
    24 and generally would leave anywhere between 7, 8,
    25 9 at night.
    68
    1 Q. How long did that continue, Sheriff Pagel?
    2 A. I was there the entire week that we were out
    3 there.
    4 Q. And until the road was reopened and the searching
    5 was done?
    6 A. That's correct.

    ReplyDelete
  6. magiclougieSaturday, January 13, 2018

    7 Q. All right. Now, during that time that you were
    8 out there, during these long daylight hours,
    9 essentially, did you, personally, direct the
    10 activities of Lieutenant Lenk?
    11 A. Did I, personally? How did you phrase it?
    12 Q. Direct the activities of Lieutenant Lenk of the
    13 Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department?
    14 A. Not personally, no. It was -- Could have been
    15 done either through the command post. Again,
    16 they were there as a support group. So we would
    17 utilize our investigators, our officers, our
    18 personnel, along with agents from the Department
    19 of Criminal Investigation and individuals would
    20 then be assigned to those particular individuals
    21 who would be the lead people doing particular --
    22 particular programs or parts of the investigation
    23 out there.
    24 Q. Activities. All right. So you set up a command
    25 post?
    69
    1 A. Yes.
    2 Q. You set that up in conjunction with the DCI?
    3 A. Yes.
    4 Q. There were other law enforcement agencies, also,
    5 at the command post?
    6 A. Yes, there were other agencies involved in the
    7 investigation who were there for support and
    8 assistance.
    9 Q. In the command post?
    10 A. Not necessarily inside the command post. We
    11 tried to limit individuals who would be in the
    12 command post. We had a number of individuals who
    13 were out there on any particular day and we
    14 couldn't have all those individuals in the
    15 command post, but we would have the individuals
    16 who were going to be responsible for doing a
    17 particular activity, given their assignments.
    18 Q. Okay. Physically, what was the command post?
    19 A. Physically, what was it?
    20 Q. Yeah.
    21 A. It's our command trailer that we have at the
    22 Sheriff's Department?
    23 Q. Like a Winnebago type?
    24 A. It's a good size.
    25 Q. Okay. But not everybody can crowd into those
    70
    1 things?
    2 A. Right.
    3 Q. Okay. So people, law enforcement officers, would
    4 come in as necessary to participate in
    5 discussions?
    6 A. Yes. Whoever we needed to discuss matters with
    7 would be invited into the command post and we
    8 would then discuss our information with them.
    9 Q. The -- You ran this investigation in conjunction
    10 with DCI, you said?
    11 A. Yes.
    12 Q. And then, jointly, with a number of other
    13 agencies?
    14 A. Yes.
    15 Q. The FBI was involved?
    16 A. Yes, the FBI.
    17 Q. They were in the command post from time to time?
    18 A. They were -- They were only out there for a short
    19 period of time. They arrived and indicated that
    20 if we needed their assistance for anything we
    21 should feel free to contact them. I think they
    22 might have been there personally, only a couple
    23 of hours.
    24 Q. Okay. But they said, call if you need help?
    25 A. Yes.
    71
    1 Q. The Wisconsin State Patrol was out there for a
    2 longer period of time?
    3 A. They were there several days, yes.
    4 Q. They had command officers in and out of the
    5 command post?
    6 A. Yes, they would have had individuals in and out.
    7 Q. The Two Rivers Police Department?
    8 A. Yes.
    9 Q. They had senior staff in and out of the command
    10 post?
    11 A. I don't know if they would have had individuals
    12 in or out, specifically, or if they were just
    13 part of the support group.
    14 Q. All right. But what you tried to do was run this
    15 as a collaborative, or a joint effort?
    16 A. Yes.

    ReplyDelete
  7. magiclougieSaturday, January 13, 2018

    17 Q. You consulted with Manitowoc County Sheriff's
    18 personnel?
    19 A. Yes.
    20 Q. They were in and out of the command post?
    21 A. Yes.
    22 Q. At least the ranking members were?
    23 A. Yes.
    24 Q. So you weren't necessarily, personally, directing
    25 things, but you were part of a group that was
    72
    1 making conjunctive, or joint, or collaborative,
    2 investigative decisions, so that all the tasks
    3 got done?
    4 A. Attempting to, yes.
    5 Q. Right. Were you aware, on November 5, let's say,
    6 that Lieutenant Lenk and Sergeant Colborn of the
    7 Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department recently
    8 had given depositions in Steven Avery's civil
    9 lawsuit?
    10 A. No, I was not aware of that.
    11 Q. When did you first learn that?
    12 A. Today, in court.
    13 Q. Mr. Avery, then, was arrested on November 9, if I
    14 understood your testimony correctly?
    15 A. I believe that would be correct, yes.
    16 Q. Charged, initially, with being a felon in
    17 possession of a firearm?
    18 A. That's correct.
    19 Q. Now, you have had enough time in the criminal
    20 justice system to know that, typically, at least
    21 when somebody is charged in a Circuit Court of
    22 the State of Wisconsin, there's a Criminal
    23 Complaint filed?
    24 A. Yes.
    25 Q. With the court?
    73
    1 A. Yes, will eventually be filed.
    2 Q. With the court, correct?
    3 A. Yes.
    4 Q. And, typically, as far as I know, always, that's
    5 a publicly available document?
    6 A. Yes.
    7 Q. That is, anyone from the public, including a
    8 reporter, could go to the Clerk of Court's Office
    9 and say, May I see the Criminal Complaint against
    10 Joe Blow, or Steven Avery, or anyone else?
    11 A. That is correct.
    12 Q. Make a copy of it?
    13 A. Yes.
    14 Q. And leave with it?
    15 A. Yes.
    16 Q. All right. So in terms of making something --
    17 making information available to the public, one
    18 way to do that is to file, at least, an unsealed
    19 public document in court?
    20 A. It would be a public document, yes.
    21 Q. That was done here with the felon in possession
    22 of a firearm Complaint, as to Mr. Avery, correct?
    23 A. I believe so, yes.
    24 Q. It was done with the criminal charge against
    25 Brendan Dassey on or about March 2, 2006?
    74
    1 A. That's correct.
    2 Q. You know, of your personal knowledge, that
    3 Mr. Dassey, although 16 years old, was charged as
    4 an adult from the outset?
    5 A. Yes.
    6 Q. So you knew that that was a public proceeding
    7 from the outset, not a juvenile and closed
    8 proceeding?
    9 A. Yes.
    10 Q. You knew that the Criminal Complaint against
    11 Brendan Dassey, therefore, was a public document?
    12 A. That is correct.
    13 Q. You and Mr. Kratz began to talk about public
    14 dissemination of information in this
    15 investigation, when?
    16 A. The dissemination of information to the media and
    17 to the public?
    18 Q. Yeah.
    19 A. That was done on the first day, that Saturday
    20 that we were at the Avery property.
    21 Q. Mr. Kratz was out there as well?
    22 A. Yes.

    ReplyDelete
  8. magiclougieSaturday, January 13, 2018

    23 Q. You learned on November 5, or shortly after, that
    24 a number of people lived on what we are calling
    25 the Avery property, correct?
    75
    1 A. That is correct.
    2 Q. Family members, including extended family
    3 members, correct?
    4 A. Yes.
    5 Q. Husbands, wives, boyfriends, girlfriends, a whole
    6 collection of people?
    7 A. That is correct.
    8 Q. This is a large -- relatively large parcel of 40
    9 acres, plus?
    10 A. Yes.
    11 Q. Steven Avery being one of the people who lived
    12 somewhere on what you are calling the Avery
    13 property?
    14 A. That is correct.
    15 Q. On November 5, when you and Mr. Kratz were on the
    16 Avery property, you began to discuss, I guess,
    17 gee, how are we going to disseminate information
    18 to the media?
    19 A. And what information was going to be
    20 disseminated.
    21 Q. And what. Were you and Mr. Kratz the only two
    22 decision makers on those discussions?
    23 A. No. The investigative staff, agents from DCI,
    24 investigators from my office, would meet, and
    25 discuss, and come up with what investigative
    76
    1 material. What information was going to be, and
    2 should be, and needed to be, released to the
    3 media and to the public.
    4 Q. So, again, I guess, a little bit, as you were
    5 describing the investigation itself, your
    6 personal style, or your approach to dissemination
    7 of information to the media, was more collegial
    8 or collaborative and inclusive?
    9 A. That would be correct.
    10 Q. And that's just a matter of personal style for
    11 you?
    12 A. No, it's done for a number of reasons: One, to
    13 ensure that information that investigators have,
    14 information that they do not wish to be divulged,
    15 is not divulged. And, again, it's better to do
    16 it jointly, together, so that you don't say or
    17 disseminate information that should not be, and
    18 disseminate information that should be.
    19 Again, we had a missing person. We were
    20 still looking for Teresa Halbach. And throughout
    21 this case we were looking for Teresa Halbach.
    22 And we felt that it was important that the media,
    23 the public, be provided with this information.
    24 Q. In a criminal investigation -- Well, first of
    25 all, a criminal investigation would be different
    77
    1 in your world, in the jargon of law enforcement,
    2 than a missing persons investigation, correct?
    3 A. Yes, there would be different aspects.
    4 Q. You separate those two things, or distinguish
    5 between them?
    6 A. You can, occasionally, but sometimes they run
    7 hand in hand. If you still do not have a
    8 missing-- if you still have not located the
    9 missing person, you still have an individual you
    10 are trying to locate, so they can run jointly.
    11 Q. Of course, but at the outset, in law enforcement,
    12 at least in Calumet County, you distinguish
    13 between those two, a missing person investigation
    14 and the criminal investigation?
    15 A. Yes.
    16 Q. Many missing person investigations turn out to be
    17 a teenager who was upset with mom and ran away
    18 for a few hours?
    19 A. That can be true, yes.
    20 Q. And I think even here, I don't remember which
    21 news conference, but I think at some point you or
    22 Mr. Kratz made a comment that, we now have a
    23 criminal investigation, not just a missing
    24 persons investigation. This isn't verbatim, I
    25 don't remember the exact words.
    78
    1 A. Yeah, but words to the effect that the
    2 investigation was tending to lead towards a
    3 criminal investigative nature.
    4 Q. Right. And that would have been -- Regardless of
    5 when and who said it, you began to think of this
    6 as a criminal investigation, or at least leading
    7 that way, when?
    8 A. Probably after information was obtained from the
    9 Crime Lab, which was providing us with details as
    10 to information being found in Teresa's vehicle.
    11 Q. So the vehicle was found November 5?
    12 A. Yes.

    ReplyDelete
  9. magiclougieSaturday, January 13, 2018

    13 Q. What looks like blood is found that same day,
    14 November 5?
    15 A. Yes, I believe so.
    16 Q. Some swabs for collection of the blood is
    17 undertaken?
    18 A. Yes. The entire vehicle is removed from the
    19 Avery property and taken to Madison, to the Crime
    20 Lab.
    21 Q. What day was it removed?
    22 A. It was removed Saturday evening, late Saturday
    23 evening.
    24 Q. Taken directly to the Crime Lab?
    25 A. Yes.
    79
    1 Q. And further collection of evidence is done, then,
    2 from the vehicle?
    3 A. Yeah, the evidence -- the vehicle is then
    4 analyzed for evidence.
    5 Q. When -- When, then, did you get your first
    6 information back from the Crime Lab that caused
    7 you to think of this as looking like a criminal
    8 investigation?
    9 A. Again, it was probably Monday or Tuesday. I
    10 can't recall, specifically, what day it was.
    11 Q. Okay. Maybe this will help, you remember
    12 somebody first saying, gee, I think we have got
    13 bone fragments?
    14 A. That would have probably been on Tuesday, I think
    15 you said, was the 8th.
    16 Q. Right.
    17 A. Then, yeah, we discovered some bone fragments on
    18 the property. And, again, they had to be
    19 analyzed to determine whether they were human in
    20 nature.
    21 Q. But had you heard back from the Crime Lab before
    22 somebody said we have got bone fragments, or
    23 after?
    24 A. I believe it was before, that we had some
    25 information back, some preliminary information
    80
    1 back from the Crime Lab.
    2 Q. So probably Monday, November 7th?
    3 A. Could be, correct.
    4 Q. Okay. Now, in a criminal investigation, one of
    5 the things that law enforcement people do in
    6 disseminating information publicly is attempt not
    7 to disclose information that should be known only
    8 to the culprit, or the perpetrator, correct?
    9 A. We try to do that, yes.
    10 Q. So that if you find someone, and in talking with
    11 that person they have that information, you know
    12 that they haven't gotten it by watching
    13 television?
    14 A. That would be correct.
    15 Q. Or reading the newspaper or something. What sort
    16 of information, prior to a criminal
    17 investigation, do you not want disclosed in a
    18 missing persons investigation?
    19 A. Well, in a missing persons investigation, you
    20 want to get information out to the public as to
    21 the person who was missing, what the person might
    22 have been wearing, a general description of the
    23 person, and in this particular case, her vehicle.
    24 Q. Okay. And by elimination, then, certain personal
    25 information you would not want disclosed, I
    81
    1 assume?
    2 A. Personal information?
    3 Q. About the missing person, private information?
    4 A. You possibly could want to withhold that, yes.
    5 And it's a -- a decision is made, is it
    6 pertinent --
    7 Q. Right.
    8 A. -- to this particular missing person.
    9 Q. If it's not particularly pertinent, then privacy
    10 concerns would prevail?
    11 A. Sure.

    ReplyDelete
  10. magiclougieSaturday, January 13, 2018

    12 Q. All right. Now, the purpose, then, of these
    13 collaborative or collegial meetings, was to find
    14 out, gee, guys, what information do you think we
    15 should and should not disclose?
    16 A. Yes.
    17 Q. Reach some agreement on that, as a group?
    18 A. Yes.
    19 Q. And then, you know, as people say, make sure
    20 we're all on the same page?
    21 A. Correct.
    22 Q. Then, you and Mr. Kratz would be the public
    23 spokespeople?
    24 A. That was a decision that was made, yes.
    25 Q. Who were the decision makers on that, in the end?
    82
    1 A. As far as what information is released?
    2 Q. Right. And by whom?
    3 A. Again, it is a collaborative effort among
    4 everybody who's involved in the investigation.
    5 There were several incidences where the
    6 investigators said, no, we can't release this, or
    7 maybe we should release this, and a discussion
    8 was held.
    9 Q. And maybe an agreement was reached each of those
    10 occasions, but to the extent that there was no
    11 agreement, or somebody had to make the call, make
    12 the decision, so to speak, who was doing that?
    13 A. Well, I guess that information, the ultimate
    14 information that was released, would have been
    15 Mr. Kratz and myself, because we were the
    16 individuals who released the information.
    17 Q. Jointly, not one over the other?
    18 A. Yeah, I would believe probably, right, he would
    19 release information, I would release information,
    20 but we knew what information was going to be
    21 released.
    22 Q. And you decided that jointly?
    23 A. Yes.
    24 Q. The press conferences on March 1 and March 2, of
    25 course, were well after Mr. Avery had been
    83
    1 charged with murder?
    2 A. Yes.
    3 Q. The March 1 press conference was before Brendan
    4 Dassey had been charged with murder and other
    5 crimes?
    6 A. He was in custody.
    7 Q. Right.
    8 A. But he had not --
    9 Q. Before a Criminal --
    10 A. Yes.
    11 Q. -- Complaint had been filed?
    12 A. Yes, before he had been taken to court.
    13 Q. The March 2 press conference was after he had
    14 been charged formally, a Criminal Complaint had
    15 been filed against Mr. Dassey?
    16 A. Yes.
    17 Q. The Criminal Complaint was distributed to
    18 interested members of the media at the March 2
    19 press conference, or after?
    20 A. I can't recall if it was before or after.
    21 Q. But one or the other?
    22 A. Yes.
    23 Q. You made copies available?
    24 A. Yes. Yes.
    25 Q. To save them the trouble of going to the Clerk of
    84
    1 Court?
    2 A. Right.

    ReplyDelete
  11. magiclougieSaturday, January 13, 2018

    3 Q. So the press conference wasn't going to replace
    4 disclosure of the Criminal Complaint?
    5 A. Again, it was felt, a decision was made, that
    6 maybe we needed a press conference so that we
    7 could discuss this information with the news
    8 media and kind of inform them of what they were
    9 going to be reading and seeing in the Criminal
    10 Complaint.
    11 It was felt that it was important. And
    12 it was a tough decision to make, should we just
    13 give it to them, or not. We felt that it was
    14 better to be able to control and to answer
    15 questions, I guess, that the media might have.
    16 Q. Well, what control did you have after you handed
    17 them a copy of the Complaint?
    18 A. Well, you still are able to answer questions and
    19 you are still able to provide them with some
    20 information that is of help, I guess,
    21 sensitivity, again, to the family in this matter.
    22 Q. Okay. You had no -- you had no serious question
    23 about the ability of the assembled reporters to
    24 read English?
    25 A. No, we knew that they were going to be doing
    85
    1 that, yes.
    2 Q. They would read the Complaint for themselves?
    3 A. Yes.
    4 Q. All right. So I guess, necessarily, the purpose
    5 of answering questions, or providing further
    6 information, was to tell them details, or
    7 explanations, beyond those contained in the words
    8 of the Criminal Complaint?
    9 A. Yes. And, again, the concern was that they were
    10 going to take this and go in all directions. And
    11 we wanted to be able to control, again, the
    12 information. You have to look at it as a whole
    13 picture here, not just -- excuse me -- not just
    14 little pieces, but a whole picture.
    15 Q. And I guess my question was, how in the world
    16 were you going to control the media after they
    17 left that room? And we have something called the
    18 First Amendment in this country, right?
    19 A. Mm-hmm.
    20 Q. Did you ask them not to print certain things, not
    21 to broadcast certain things?
    22 A. No, but I think by being able to answer questions
    23 and providing them with information, it's going
    24 to enhance our ability to be able to provide them
    25 and not let them run in all directions with this
    86
    1 Complaint, talking to individuals, trying to
    2 gather more information than what was in the
    3 Criminal Complaint.
    4 And that's always a concern that
    5 everybody has in major investigations, is that
    6 the media, or anybody else, is going to take
    7 information that they have obtained and go
    8 further and try to enhance what they are reading,
    9 and what they are seeing, or what's in the
    10 Criminal Complaint.
    11 Q. Okay. Now, you have used the word control here
    12 at least -- at least a half dozen times or
    13 something, I haven't counted, but. By control,
    14 you certainly could control what you and
    15 Mr. Kratz were saying, correct?
    16 A. Yes.
    17 Q. You could put out the information under your
    18 control, that you chose to disseminate. You had
    19 control in that sense, correct?
    20 A. Yes.
    21 Q. You could decline to put out information, that
    22 was a way to exercise control?
    23 A. Yes, that's true.
    24 Q. You could phrase information in a certain way,
    25 that was another form of control you had?
    87
    1 A. Yes.

    ReplyDelete
  12. magiclougieSaturday, January 13, 2018

    2 Q. You -- These news conferences didn't just happen,
    3 invitations were sent, or notices were sent to
    4 media outlets?
    5 A. They were provided with a date and time so that
    6 we could have everybody together at one time,
    7 rather than having individuals from the media
    8 calling and getting information at this time, and
    9 this time, and that time.
    10 Q. Sure. Sure. So either your office or
    11 Mr. Kratz's office, somebody was either mailing
    12 or faxing, you know, here's the date, here's the
    13 time, here's the place, kind of information to
    14 media outlets?
    15 A. Yes. And, again, this goes back to some training
    16 that I have received as to providing one news
    17 conference where everybody gets the same
    18 information.
    19 Q. Fair enough. And you made a facility available
    20 at which cameras could be set up?
    21 A. Yes.
    22 Q. Microphones could be set up?
    23 A. Yes.
    24 Q. And that was another form of control, in the
    25 sense that, if your words are recorded on tape
    88
    1 or, you know, orally, as opposed to visually.
    2 Now, you know, somebody plays the tape, you know
    3 exactly what the viewer will see and hear?
    4 A. Yes.
    5 Q. But what the media did after they left your news
    6 conference, after they shut off the lights, and
    7 turned off the cameras, and took the microphones,
    8 that you couldn't control?
    9 A. That is correct.
    10 Q. What Steven Avery might choose to say, you could
    11 not control?
    12 A. That is correct.
    13 Q. What his family members might say, you could not
    14 control?
    15 A. That is correct.
    16 Q. Other than the week or thereabouts that you had
    17 control of the Avery property, you couldn't
    18 prevent the media from going and talking to the
    19 Avery family members?
    20 A. Yes, and that happened.
    21 Q. How many times in your -- Well, how long have you
    22 been a law enforcement officer?
    23 A. 33 years.
    24 Q. Part of a long line of Pagels, I think, with the
    25 Sheriff's Department in Calumet County, right?
    89
    1 A. Yes.
    2 Q. And during your 33 years in law enforcement, on
    3 how many occasions have you held a televised news
    4 conference, as you did on November 11, to respond
    5 to something that somebody, charged with being a
    6 felon in possession of a firearm, may have said
    7 publicly?
    8 A. How many times have we had similar type --
    9 Q. Yes.
    10 A. -- news conferences? I would have to go back and
    11 check through my notes and records but --
    12 Q. I bet you remember.
    13 A. There have been a couple.
    14 Q. There have been a couple?
    15 A. Yes, we have had a number of major investigations
    16 that we have conducted, that we have had these
    17 type of news conferences.
    18 Q. But my question was really more narrow. I mean,
    19 how often have you had a news conference to
    20 respond to something that an arrested defendant
    21 has said publicly?
    22 A. Myself, probably none.
    23 Q. This was the only time?
    24 A. Yes, I believe so.
    25 Q. This case?
    90
    1 A. Myself, as sheriff, investigating or being
    2 involved?
    3 Q. Yes.
    4 A. Yes. I know there's been other cases, but not
    5 myself, no.
    6 Q. Ever -- Ever in your experience with him, ever
    7 hear Mr. Kratz give a news conference to respond
    8 to some claim that a defendant has made publicly?
    9 A. I don't know. I guess that would be something
    10 you would have to ask Mr. Kratz if he can --
    11 Q. But you don't remember seeing --
    12 A. I don't know.
    13 Q. -- or hearing such a thing?
    14 A. I would have to look back. I don't know. I
    15 can't answer that.
    16 Q. As you sit here today, you don't recall?
    17 A. I don't recall, sitting here today.

    ReplyDelete
  13. magiclougieSaturday, January 13, 2018

    18 Q. Okay. If I understood your testimony on direct,
    19 you were getting phone calls from Avery family
    20 members, or members of the general public, saying
    21 something like, are you framing Steven Avery?
    22 A. No, the news media was calling my cellphone and
    23 indicating that they were getting calls from Mr.
    24 Avery, or from family members, and that certain
    25 information was being released to the news media
    91
    1 via them.
    2 And they were trying to confirm whether
    3 this was factual or not. And they would be
    4 informed that any information that was going to
    5 be divulged would be divulged at the news
    6 conference, or at the press conference.
    7 Q. Referring to the November 11 news conference?
    8 A. This was numerous times throughout this. And, in
    9 fact, even the day of March 1st, I was receiving
    10 phone calls from the news media inquiring about
    11 the fact that, we understand that Brendan Dassey
    12 has been interviewed, the Avery's have called us
    13 and told us this.
    14 And, again, they were disseminating the
    15 information themselves. And we had -- we felt we
    16 had an opportunity, or we should be dispelling
    17 some of the information that the Avery's were
    18 providing.
    19 Q. Well, let me be clear. I mean, it was members of
    20 the news media who were telling you that the
    21 Avery's had called them?
    22 A. Yes.
    23 Q. You probably saw some Avery family members back
    24 before Steven was in custody so, that is, before
    25 November 9, probably saw some film footage, if
    92
    1 you watched the TV's at all, of him and other
    2 family members?
    3 A. That is correct.
    4 Q. But you also know that you were getting calls
    5 from media people in which they claim that they
    6 had gotten information from the Avery's that had
    7 not been made public by those media sources?
    8 A. Yes.
    9 Q. And so you and Mr. Kratz made a decision to
    10 respond publicly to these phone calls on your
    11 cellphone, that you were getting from the media
    12 people, saying the Averys are calling us and
    13 telling us X, Y, or Z?
    14 A. The news media was told that any information that
    15 was going to be released would be done at the
    16 press conference and that we weren't going to be
    17 speaking to them, or giving them information
    18 without having a joint conference.
    19 Q. Okay. Although, you did do that, you sat down
    20 for an interview on air, in your office, at one
    21 point, didn't you?
    22 A. Yes, I have had interviews in my office.
    23 Q. About this case?
    24 A. Yes.
    25 Q. Including about claims that evidence was not
    93
    1 handled appropriately?
    2 A. Yes, there was one, yes.

    ReplyDelete
  14. magiclougieSaturday, January 13, 2018

    3 Q. Prior to November 11, which I think was the news
    4 conference that responded to suggestions of
    5 mishandling of evidence, or improper motives,
    6 prior to that date, what investigation had you,
    7 or those under your direction, done to assure
    8 yourself that there had not been mishandling of
    9 evidence?
    10 A. Interviews were done, and the information that we
    11 were obtaining from the State Crime Lab was
    12 tending to indicate, or inform us, that this was
    13 impossible.
    14 Q. When you say interviews were done, who did you
    15 interview about the possible mishandling of
    16 evidence?
    17 A. We would be conversing with individuals out at
    18 the scene. And we knew that there was no
    19 possibility, because there was always an
    20 investigator, either from the Sheriff's
    21 Department of Calumet County, or from DCI, with
    22 these individuals. So we knew that wasn't a
    23 possibility.
    24 Q. So when you say these individuals, you were
    25 referring to Manitowoc County Sheriff's
    94
    1 Department personnel?
    2 A. That's who I thought you were referring to.
    3 Q. I'm just asking who you were referring to?
    4 A. Yes.
    5 Q. Okay. So the safeguard, so to speak, was, well,
    6 we will make sure we always have a Calumet County
    7 person with the Manitowoc people?
    8 A. Calumet, DCI, yes.
    9 Q. Somebody from outside the Manitowoc County
    10 Sheriff's Department?
    11 A. That was -- That was done, yes.
    12 Q. Was that actually a policy that was put in place
    13 for this investigation?
    14 A. Yes.
    15 Q. When was that policy put in place?
    16 A. Shortly after the investigation was turned over
    17 to Calumet County and DCI.
    18 Q. And who put that policy in place?
    19 A. It was a joint decision made through our agency,
    20 the Calumet County District Attorney's Office,
    21 and the Manitowoc County D.A.'s Office, and Corp
    22 Counsel, and Sheriff's Department.
    23 Q. Okay. So, the three Manitowoc County agencies,
    24 D.A., Sheriff's Department, and Corp Counsel,
    25 correct?
    95
    1 A. Yes.
    2 Q. Two Calumet County agencies, Sheriff's Department
    3 and District Attorney's Office?
    4 A. Yes.
    5 Q. And I think I missed someone. DCI?
    6 A. DCI.
    7 Q. DCI. So among these six groups, this decision
    8 was made, we will always have somebody from
    9 another department there with any Manitowoc
    10 County Sheriff's Department person involved in
    11 this investigation?
    12 A. Yes, because of the fact that we were the lead
    13 agency and we found out about the pending
    14 litigation against Manitowoc County by Mr. Avery.
    15 Q. That's done on November 5, right?
    16 A. Yes.

    ReplyDelete
  15. magiclougieSaturday, January 13, 2018

    17 Q. Why would that be done on November 5, if Steven
    18 Avery was not a suspect, or a person of interest,
    19 until November 9?
    20 A. Again, the evidence -- the vehicle was found on
    21 the Avery property. There's a lawsuit filed by
    22 Steven. So -- So, as to not look like there was
    23 any type of tampering, we felt it was important
    24 that we do the investigation properly from the
    25 beginning. And this is the reason it was done.
    96
    1 Q. Again, I don't think that that addresses my
    2 question. Why, if Steven Avery was not a
    3 specific person of interest, or a suspect, until
    4 November 9, why the great concern to be
    5 shadowing, or accompanying, and watching over the
    6 shoulder of the Manitowoc County Sheriff's
    7 Department?
    8 A. Because --
    9 ATTORNEY KRATZ: Judge, I'm sorry. Judge,
    10 I'm going to interpose an objection if Mr. Strang is
    11 meaning to quote a previous answer or question. The
    12 question was why was he not identified as a suspect.
    13 Mr. Strang has now said, if he was not a suspect.
    14 It is a mischaracterization of the previous question
    15 that was placed.
    16 ATTORNEY STRANG: I will have the court
    17 reporter read back my original question.
    18 (Question read back.)
    19 Q. (By Attorney Strang)~ Maybe you could answer that
    20 question?
    21 A. Okay. We have a vehicle that's found on the
    22 property. We have a missing person
    23 investigation. We have Steven Avery being one of
    24 the individuals who is living on this property as
    25 were other members of his family.
    97
    1 Because of the litigation, it was felt
    2 that, let's insure that there's no thing in the
    3 future that's going to be construed as being a
    4 cover up, or anything like that. Let's ensure
    5 that if we are going to do this investigation, we
    6 are going to do it properly, and let's do it from
    7 the beginning. And that's why it was done that
    8 way.
    9 Q. All right. Now, do I understand, then, that as
    10 to what investigation you had done into the
    11 possible mishandling of evidence as of the
    12 November 11 news conference, the answer is none,
    13 but that you had put this policy in place on
    14 November 5?
    15 A. The policy, meaning the policy as far as?
    16 Q. If someone from another law enforcement agency is
    17 looking over the shoulder of any Manitowoc County
    18 Sheriff's Department person involved in this
    19 investigation.
    20 A. Again, that's the reason that Manitowoc asked us
    21 to do the investigation in the first place --
    22 Q. I understand.
    23 A. -- because of this litigation. And so, because
    24 of that litigation, we felt it was very
    25 important, that if you wanted us to be the lead
    98
    1 agency, that we do it properly from the beginning
    2 and start, and so that there can't be any
    3 inference in the future that it wasn't done
    4 properly.
    5 Q. Understood. And the question was, as of November
    6 11, then, putting this policy in place was the
    7 only step you had taken to assure yourself that
    8 there was not mishandling of evidence, or other
    9 misconduct by law enforcement officers?

    http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Full-Pre-Trial-and-Post-Trial-Motion-Hearing-Transcripts-combined.pdf#page=497

    ReplyDelete
  16. magiclougieSaturday, January 13, 2018

    Former Calumet County Sheriff Jerry Pagel has watched several episodes of "Making a Murder." He calls it a one-sided documentary which fails to tell the entire story.

    "I believe it's a defense-based, biased film, slanted towards the defense," said Pagel.

    He says the filmmakers focused on a defense theory that Avery was framed by Manitowoc County investigators who planted evidence because of a pending lawsuit for his wrongful rape conviction. Pagel says the theory was dismissed by the jury.

    "The allegations and assumptions presented in this film were addressed at trial," said Pagel.

    And Pagel says if someone framed Avery, they were able to hide it from the State Crime Lab, Department of Justice and FBI, who all worked the case.

    "All of these individuals would have had to have some knowledge or way to determining there was a cover-up being committed by Manitowoc County, which definitely was not done," said the retired sheriff.

    Pagel says all the evidence, not just defense allegations, convinced him of Avery's guilt. And he feels sorry for the Halbach family who are again reliving Teresa's brutal murder.

    "It has been ten years and I feel very sorry for the Halbach family - to have to go through this again,"Pagel said.

    Pagel retired from the Calumet County Sheriff's Department in 2010.

    http://www.wearegreenbay.com/news/retired-calumet-county-sheriff-jerry-pagel-calls-making-a-murderer-a-one-sided-documentary/315160663

    ReplyDelete
  17. magiclougieSaturday, January 13, 2018

    Avery's lawyer: Ex-boyfriend killed Halbach
    John Ferak, USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin
    Published 8:19 a.m. CT June 13, 2017

    It was one of the most daring and risky legal maneuvers in last week's post-conviction filing by Steven Avery's criminal defense lawyer Kathleen Zellner.

    Zellner declared in documents filed at the Manitowoc County Courthouse that she suspects Teresa Halbach's killer was her on-again, off-again boyfriend, Ryan Hillegas.

    Their relationship lasted roughly five years, beginning in high school, in the small farming community of Hilbert. Halbach, 25, vanished on Halloween 2005. Manitowoc County Sheriff's officials immediately targeted Steven Avery, a previously exonerated man, who lived in a red trailer on his family's salvage yard.

    Zellner's motion for a new trial included sworn affidavits in her 1,250-page post-conviction filing from 10 law enforcement, legal profession, medical and scientific experts. She hopes it will lead a judge to order a new trial for Avery.

    Identifying Hillegas as the suspect isn't sitting well with those who are convinced Avery killed Halbach and belongs in prison for life.

    "It's alarming that in the face of such overwhelming evidence of Mr. Avery's guilt, Ms. Zellner, who has devoted her career to righting wrongful convictions, has so recklessly accused the victim's former boyfriend without a shred of legitimate evidence backing her claim and with no regard for the harm she has caused," said Michael Griesbach, an assistant district attorney in Manitowoc who has authored multiple books about Avery.

    Griesbach emphasized he was speaking with USA TODAY NETWORK in his capacity as a published author, not as a Wisconsin district attorney.

    Zellner said her legal team attempted to interview Hillegas, who lives in the Milwaukee area, over the past 18 months, but had no success.

    "Our investigators contacted Mr. Hillegas to interview him," Zellner told USA TODAY NETWORK. "He was told that we wanted to rule him out as a potential suspect, but we needed answers to certain questions related to his alibi, abusive relationship with Teresa Halbach, knowledge of her password, injuries to his left hand, interaction with law enforcement from Nov. 3 (2005) onward, damage to Teresa Halbach's parking light, access to Avery property Nov. 7. Mr. Hillegas never responded."

    A message seeking comment was left on Hillegas cell phone Monday, but he did not immediately respond.

    CONTINUED...

    ReplyDelete
  18. magiclougieSaturday, January 13, 2018

    Why the defense suspects Hillegas

    Here are the key points in Zellner's motion relating to Hillegas as a suspect:

    1. No alibi for time of murder

    During Avery's trial, Hillegas testified that he last saw Halbach on Oct. 30, 2005, but claimed he did not remember what time he visited her property. "I have seen no evidence that he offered an alibi or any sort of statement regarding his activities from Oct. 31, 2005, to November 3, 2005. Nor have I seen any evidence that the authorities ever asked him to do so," said Gregg McCrary, a retired FBI agent.

    2. Spearheaded searches for vehicle

    During his initial conversations with law enforcement, Hillegas did not reveal he and Halbach previously dated for about five years. Instead, he gave the impression he was only a concerned friend. "Mr. Hillegas injected himself into the police investigation by taking an active role in the volunteer search," McCrary wrote. "He gave a female volunteer searcher (Pam Sturm) a camera and a direct phone number to the sheriff (Jerry Pagel)."

    On Saturday morning, Nov. 5, 2005, Hillegas mobilized a volunteer effort sending dozens of people out into the surrounding area to locate his ex-girlfriend or her vehicle. It was only after most of the searchers left the property when former private investigator Pam Sturm showed up. Sturm conferred with Hillegas and Scott Bloedorn, a close friend of Hillegas, who lived with Halbach at the time of her disappearance. Sturm proceeded to drive to the Avery Salvage Yard. She walked straight to the back of the property and quickly found the missing RAV4 covered with tree branches. "It appears that he directed her to the area where the victim's vehicle was located," McCrary stated, referring to Hillegas.

    3. Gave police erroneous information

    The discovery of a broken blinker light on the driver's side of Halbach's vehicle became one of the most overlooked clues in the Halbach investigation. The broken blinker turned up inside the cargo area. Hillegas "also appears to have misled police when he told them that Ms. Halbach had damaged the front driver's side of her vehicle months before her disappearance, had filed an insurance claim for that damage and had taken the cash payout without repairing the vehicle," McCrary wrote. "However, it appears that particular damage was done more contemporaneously with the crime and a check with Ms. Halbach's insurance company revealed that she never filed an insurance claim for the front-end damage."

    CONTINUED...

    ReplyDelete
  19. magiclougieSaturday, January 13, 2018

    4. Used a fake name to search near Avery Salvage

    "On at least one occasion," McCrary stated, "Mr. Hillegas had misidentified himself as Mr. Kilgus to gain access to the Avery property. Regardless, the authorities allowed Mr. Hillegas multiple entries to the Avery property while it was under police control." During the weekend of Nov. 5-6, 2005, law enforcement officials recovered no major physical evidence to Steven Avery as the killer, despite a massive police presence meticulously canvassing the 40-acre property soon after the RAV4's recovery. "On Nov. 7, 2005, the day before the victim's burned bones and electronic devices were found in Mr. Avery's burn pit and burn barrel, Mr. Hillegas entered the property without signing in at the command post," McCrary stated. "There is no way to know exactly when he entered the property, or how long he had remained, but it might explain how, despite previous searches of that property, that the victim's bones were not discovered until Nov. 8, 2005. At the very least, this type of unauthorized entry to a restricted crime scene violates proper police practices and risks contaminating the scene."

    5. Accessed Halbach's phone records after she disappeared

    At Avery's trial, defense lawyers Dean Strang and Jerry Buting asked Hillegas about gaining access to Halbach's phone records. Hillegas testified he managed to correctly guess her username and password. "There is evidence that voice messages were deleted from Ms. Halbach's voice mailbox after her death and before law enforcement initiated their missing person investigation," McCrary stated. "Mr. Hillegas is one individual who knew Ms. Halbach's username and password and assisted law enforcement in accessing her Cingular Wireless account to obtain a list of her phone calls during the relevant time period."

    6. Involved in abusive relationship with victim

    Zellner's investigators determined Halbach had severed romantic ties with Hillegas, who still remained a constant presence in her life. "She sustained both verbal and physical abuse in her relationship with her ex-boyfriend," McCrary wrote. "At the time of her death, the ex-boyfriend was unemployed, lived close by and visited her home frequently."

    7. Sustained injuries to his hands during time frame of murder

    Dr. Larry Blum, a pathologist from Rockford, Ill., reviewed television news footage showing Hillegas with several scratches to his hands as he was organizing volunteer search efforts. "It is my opinion, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty in the field of forensic pathology, that Mr. Hillegas' right hand ... appears discolored ... the abrasions I observed on the back of Mr. Hillegas' left hand are consistent with scratches inflicted by fingernails."

    Zellner told USA TODAY NETWORK on Monday she is not obligated by the criminal justice system "to prove he murdered Teresa Halbach to get Steven Avery's conviction vacated."

    "Rather, we are trying to show Hillegas had motive, opportunity and a connection to the crime that meets the Denny (third-party suspect) standard. The jury should have been presented with this evidence. It may have created a reasonable doubt about Steven's guilt."

    http://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/local/steven-avery/2017/06/13/averys-lawyer-ex-boyfriend-killed-halbach/387912001/

    ReplyDelete
  20. magiclougieSunday, January 14, 2018

    Remiker's Pre Trial Testimony: Excerpts and comments (self.TickTockManitowoc)
    submitted 9 days ago * by MMonroe54

    Buting also quotes Remiker's report to him in which he says that he spoke by phone with Wiegert and that they talked about volunteer searchers and "quote, Wiegert indicated that several searchers were willing to go to the Avery property, on Avery road, to search the junkyards/salvage area." Remiker agrees that's what the report says. Then, in response to Buting's question, he says it's close to accurate but " Well, I guess I misunderstood Investigator Wiegert in which -- at some point I had thought that he was bringing some people to our department, some volunteer searchers to coordinate our efforts, that wasn't the case."

    When Remiker says his report is "not quite accurate", Buting responds: "Not quite accurate doesn't cut it. My question is, did Wiegert say that several searchers were willing to go to the Avery property to search the junkyard/salvage yard area."

    Remiker replies that part of it is accurate but "Another conversation that I had with Wiegert after that was, he calls me, he says, Hey, we have a change of plans. I think we should reinterview Steven and another individual. And he also indicated that there were some volunteer searchers who were willing to go out and do some searches in different locations." That they should meet and talk about that and maybe try to get permission from the Averys to search the salvage yard.

    From the audio posted on youtube, I transcribed the phone call in which Remiker calls Wiegert at 9:00 am on Saturday morning. Remiker asks Wiegert what they know and have discovered -- normal for another detective working on the case, true. But, typing as I listened, it occurred to me that Remiker almost sounds as if he's pumping Wiegert to find out what Calumet County knows. He volunteers nothing, and Wiegert doesn't ask what Manitowoc County knows or has discovered, though Remiker does offer this: "the only thing we got is somebody called up and said at 8:45 am they seen a vehicle parked on I40 near the pier, it was either green or blue Rav4 vehicle." Colborn had talked to SA, and Remiker and Lenk had been to Avery's trailer and had searched it on Friday morning, supposedly at Wiegert's request. It seems odd that Wiegert doesn't ask about it but perhaps they had already discussed that on Friday; it's not clear.

    In my opinion, Buting is suspicious that the volunteers were being used to search areas that LE did not have grounds for a warrant, and "the boss" -- in this case, Pagel -- was the one who suggested it. This is from Buting's continued Direct examination of Remiker, after the break:

    Remiker on direct by Buting:

    A. What he says to me is that, he identifies him as his boss, wants him to reinterview Steven Avery, and another individual, and that there also are some volunteer searchers out there who would be willing to do some searching and that he was going to come and talk to me, and there was a chance maybe we could see if those searchers could get consent to go out on the Avery property and search. I think he called it the junkyard.

    But why does Pagel think they should reinterview SA? So far no one in his employee -- his county -- has even talked to Steven. Did the idea come, unofficially, from Manitowoc County but looked better coming from Calumet County, especially since they are now "leading" the investigation?

    It also comes out, in Remiker's testimony, that he and Wiegert talked several times again that day but by cell phone, so there are no recordings of those conversations.

    It seems obvious that Buting believes that Remiker and Wiegert got their stories straight prior to their testimony, that that's the reason Remiker reviewed recordings of phone calls and radio transmissions.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/7o5xyi/remikers_pre_trial_testimony_excerpts_and_comments/

    ReplyDelete
  21. magiclougieSunday, January 14, 2018

    Pagel coordinated the flyover over ASY, and only a very poorly edited copy of the tape was entered into evidence.

    Pagel sent a “test fax” from Teresa’s home on the morning of 11/5 (using her computer since she no longer used a fax machine and land line to send and receive faxes), and this was at the same time Pam Sturm was at Teresa’s home to volunteer her services in searching ASY for the RAV4.

    Pagel notified the press that Teresa was “last scene alive” at Avery’s.

    Pagel was present for Kratz’s press conferences to taint public opinion and the jury pool.

    Pagel called off the search when Loof tracked Teresa’s scent to Kuss Road.

    The following is Loof's handler's report for activity on November 7th.

    We walked down the driveway to the Avery property to the area where the van was sitting and for sale. I pre-scented K9 Loof and did a perimeter scent inventory. K9 Loof was harnessed, given the scent article of the insole and given the command of "Find".

    Having started approximately 50 feet east of the van, K9 Loof immediately went to the front portion of the van for sale. K9 Loof continued west going to a black F350 parked in the driveway in front of a garage. K9 Loof went to both doors of the truck. K9 Loof then went directly to the service door of the garage and worked her nose along the bottom of the actual overhead garage door, showing much interest.

    K9 Loof worked west around the side of the garage but was unable to continue due to a large aggressive appearing German Shepard. K9 Loof wanted to continue around the garage.

    K9 Loof went up to the south door of the trailer home. The door having a small porch entrance and the door was white in color. K9 Loof wanted to enter the home. K9 Loof continued north along the trailer and went between some pine trees and a burning barrel. K9 Loof smelled a charred area showing some interest then continued west.

    K9 Loof went west in a picked cornfield. Directly to the south was a gravel pit and in between the two was an area of brush and trees. K9 Loof worked this area with indications of very strong scent. K9 Loof worked west coming out to a cul-de-sac that was taped off with crime scene tape and two deputies were not allowing access. K9 Loof crossed the tape on one occasion and then was told not to go any further. The deputies phoned Sheriff Pagel to see if I could continue but were told to not allow anyone access at this time.

    http://georgezipperer.blogspot.com/2016/10/was-teresa-halbachs-last-stop-hustle.html

    ReplyDelete
  22. magiclougieSunday, January 14, 2018

    Pagel called off the search when Loof tracked Teresa's scent to Kuss Road.

    Loof was interested. I think she may have caught a faint scent of TH from the times she was out there photographing vehicles for Autotrader.

    Loof was very interested in the area by the garage, and naturally she would be, because a couple of weeks prior Teresa took a photo of Avery's Grand Prix when it was parked in front of the garage.

    Here is an OP I did a few months back, which would explain why Loof was interested:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/6hupqo/k9_loof_was_interested_in_the_bottom_of_the/

    We also know Steve said Teresa, on an earlier appointment, came to his door but she didn't go in -- this may have been on the October 10th appointment.

    http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/exhibit-016.jpg

    Loof got it backwards because his handler started Loof at the garage. From the garage and trailer, K-9 Loof went west, toward the field and the field road that led to Kuss Road. Directly to the south of Avery's trailer was Radandt's gravel pit. In between Avery's trailer and the quarry (and Radandt's deer cam) was an area of brush and trees. K-9 Loof worked this area of indications of a very strong scent. K-9 Loof worked west, from the field road to the cul-de-sac that was taped off with crime scene tape. Two deputies were not allowing access to the area.

    Loof worked in between the gravel pit and in between the area of brush and trees, and she worked the area with indications of a very strong scent.

    https://i.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/7d02xq/loof_and_the_trail_to_the_gravel_pit/

    K9 Loof was Interested in The Bottom of The Garage Door (self.TickTockManitowoc)
    submitted 7 months ago by bennybaku

    K9 Loof then went directly to the service door of the garage and worked her nose along the bottorn of the actual overhead garage door, showing much interest.

    Loof didn't hit on the garage door, but was interested. I was curious about that and remembered a couple of photo's TH took of SA's vehicles. The most recent, before the Oct 31st, was the Oct 10th, the Grand Prix. And it was parked very close to the garage door:

    http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/exhibit-016.jp

    On Sept 19th another photo, not as close to the garage but close:

    http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/exhibit-014.jpg

    K9 Loof continued north along the trailer and went between some pine trees and a burning banel. K9 Loof smelled a charred area, showing some interest, and then continued west.

    I believe these trees are where the burning barrel possibly was:

    http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/exhibit-013.jpg

    And another time there was this photo:

    http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/exhibit-012.jpg

    Many things factor in for a scent trail to remain viable for a bloodhound. Here is an article I found.

    http://www.missingpetpartnership.org/lost-pet-help/find-a-pet-detective/how-long-can-scent-survive/

    What I am trying to convey, some of the areas K9 Loof seemed interested in were areas where TH took pictures of SA vehicles. The garage: TH was by it not once but twice. And it seems to me Loof may have caught some of her scent in that area. It was not an indication of anything. The photo's tell the story.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/6hupqo/k9_loof_was_interested_in_the_bottom_of_the/

    KZ brief:

    http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Exhibit-46-Scent-and-Cadaver-Dogs-Reports.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  23. magiclougieSunday, January 14, 2018

    The 5 People it took to frame Steven Avery
    January 26, 2016
    Not Your Average American

    I believe that after Teresa Halbach left the Zipperer residence she needed to relax on her way back home. She had a long day and with her grandfather’s party the night before, and the Halloween party the day before that she was likely very tired.

    Teresa got home and Scott Bloedorn wasn’t home, but Ryan Hillegas was there. He wanted to go out with Teresa on Halloween, he couldn’t get over her. She said no but he wouldn’t take no for an answer. They got into a fight, and she was killed. Ryan doesn’t panic. But he knows he has to get her gone. He moves her body into the RAV4 and hides the vehicle. Ryan grew up there and he is an avid outdoorsman, he knows where people wouldn’t look. He is also a RN, he knows how to clean up blood and other bodily fluids.

    Then to cover his tracks he calls her on November 1 and says that he voicemail box is full and yet he doesn’t do anything to make sure that the person who would never have a full voicemail box suddenly had one.

    When Karen Halbach finally starts looking for her daughter on November 3rd, Ryan takes it upon himself to lead the civilian search team. But why would Ryan do this? Teresa’s family didn’t ask him to, or even call him themselves. He does it so he can make sure that he can stay one step ahead of any investigation.

    Then the star crossed last day of Teresa Halbach comes into focus and that is that she saw Steven Avery. This would be like winning the lottery for Peterson, Kusche, Lenk and Colborn. Someone is missing who saw Avery. That would be enough to start throwing off his irritating court case.

    Colborn was the assistant shift commander of the Road Patrol Division, meaning they would be on the road in marked cars. On November 3rd he was notified around 630 pm -730 pm by Calumet County that Teresa was missing and was given the addresses of the stops that were made in Manitowoc County. What should be noted at this time was that the only person’s name on file for Auto Trader would have been Barb Janda, not Steven Avery, since it was her van that was being sold.

    Colborn went himself to the Avery Salvage Yard and spoke to Steven Avery. Yet his shift was scheduled to end at 8 pm. Why would he go himself when he could have made any of the 6 officers he was over that day go do that job? And why would he send no one to the Zipperer residence?

    What was really troubling and never answered in the court case was when Andrew Colborn called in the license plates. Colborn said it would have probably been from November 3rd. But his shift was due to end at 8 pm. He said he doesn’t remember getting the information on the license plate number nor does he remember making the call. I think that is blatant perjury. He would have no reason to call in the plates unless he was looking at them. If he found a RAV4 he could have easily just called in then, which would be more appropriate and in line with law enforcement protocol.

    I think that not long after Lt James Lenk called Calumet to see if he could help that they went to Teresa’s house. There they talked to Ryan Hillegas and Scott Bloedurm. Lenk and Colburn pulled Ryan to the side. They told him that they had found the RAV4 that they had found his finger prints, but that they would forget about him, if and only if he helped them frame Steven Avery.

    Then all three of them took the RAV4 to the quarry and incinerated her body. They then left a few remains there to ensure that the death of Halbach could point more to Avery. Then they hid the RAV4.

    https://justanothersouthernsocialist.wordpress.com/2016/01/26/the-5-people-it-took-to-frame-steven-avery/

    ReplyDelete
  24. magiclougieMonday, January 15, 2018

    I have the final shot of the RAV image from flyover on 4th [cough... 5th] * Got it from the video function of Adobe Lightroom (self.TickTockManitowoc)

    submitted 14 hours ago * by seekingtruthforgood

    If you are tired of this topic, fair warning - you won't want to read this post :)

    I said I would take one more pass at capturing the very last image of the RAV4 from the flyover footage that we (or least I) thought was footage from the 4th (which I am seriously questioning now in terms of the date of the footage.)

    I went to school for Adobe Lightroom roughly 8 years ago - I use the software for photography and forgot about its pretty cool video module. Adobe Lightroom can literally advance a video, frame by frame, AND capture a still image from that frame. It advances the frame using a fairly cool algorithm. From the still, one can further improve the image with Adobe's built in tools.

    So, by using the video module, I was able to capture the last three (3) frames of the flyover video (from what we thought was footage on the 4th.)

    The first link below is the compilation of the last three (3) frames in order. Notice the last frame is the actual point of the blur we see in the video - for anyone wondering, that frame with the blur is the absolute last frame before the camera abruptly shifts left.

    https://imgur.com/v0VV5Cb

    The following three links thereafter are the screen shots of the frame captures from Lightroom, starting in order from the first capture, moving right to the last two captures.

    https://imgur.com/Jglmfyd

    https://imgur.com/K1gcSLt

    https://imgur.com/sBWBd8n

    EDIT TO ADD: I posted this in the thread below, but am adding my thoughts to this post about the RAV being in the yard on the 4th.

    I think the RAV was there on the 4th and that it was captured in the photos or video... possibly even hidden under a tarp... like supposedly Griesbach or Kratz lead the producers to believe for the April 2015 airing on Investigation Discovery. The show claimed it was found like this image the show actually posted:

    https://imgur.com/qnxs4st

    Here's the problem with the footage from the 4th showing the RAV was there... the minute it's discovered by the defense that law enforcement was viewing the photos and footage on the 4th, saw the tarp and/or RAV, and then sent PAM STURM and searchers in just hours later, to exactly that area of the yard, is the minute she became a formalized proxy for law enforcement, on a "warrantless" search.

    [–]seekingtruthforgood[S]
    The images actually show that the RAV appears to be there... but, the footage is also all wonky and has issues... so, whether that video is from the 4th or not, I guess I am no longer certain...

    [–]s_wardy_s

    I just can't get how if they had the perfect opportunity to get a warrant to search the yard, which they would have had if they saw it on the 4th, then why didn't they? I'm sorry, the pictures are too blurry and give us absolutely nothing, and unless there are better images to go by, then I just can't buy the RAV being there on the 4th. If they saw the RAV on the 4th then they wouldn't have concocted a very high-risk POG story. Surely! By using POG on the 5th after they already knew it was there by having footage, that just means they can never produce the footage as proof the RAV was already there. Nope, for me, the RAV was planted later that afternoon, and the flyover was used as a ruse so they could choose the perfect place to plant it.

    Two things tell me why this was a ruse: 1) Pagel himself was on the plane doing the flyover. 2) RH gave POG Pagel's direct line in case she found anything.

    During the flyover Pagel picked the perfect place to plant the car, that place was relayed to AC and RH, who then spent the late afternoon placing the RAV. POG was given the job of locating it, not hard given she would have been given the location, along with camera and PAGEL's number.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/7qg6hq/i_have_the_final_shot_of_the_rav_image_from/

    ReplyDelete
  25. magiclougieTuesday, January 16, 2018

    BLOG UPDATES 1/16/2018:

    In his November 4th activity report, it states Schultz "notified" Pagel that the number belonged to Brad Czech and then Schultz searched "sandpits" in the area of County Road K and Jodar Road, just south of Greenleaf, Wisconsin:

    "After receiving the voice mailbox for BRADLEY C, I did notify Sheriff PAGEL of my findings as to the user of that number. I then searched the area of CTH K and the area of Jodar Rd., namely the sandpits located on the north side owned by DAVE JANNETTE & COMPANY. I was unable to locate anything."

    However, the CASO dispatch log indicates that Schultz returned to CASO or was at Teresa's home at 9:42 a.m. on November 4th.

    Around 10 a.m. on November 4th, Pagel was with Wiegert at Teresa's home, at which time Wiegert briefly interviewed Ryan Hillegas (CASO, page 31). It is the only record for an interview of Ryan by law enforcement.

    At 10:46 a.m. on November 4th, Schultz was at a residence on S. 6th Street in Hilbert (per CASO dispatch log). This is the street where Ryan lived with his parents at the time. The street number has been redacted from the log released to the public in 2016. However, you can see that the number is two digits and appears to begin with a "1." Yet, there isn't an address on that street that is two digits and begins with a "1."

    Suspiciously, Schultz's activity report for November 4th doesn't mention anything about him being at an address on S. 6th Street in Hilbert from 10:46 to 11 a.m. (CASO, page 23).

    Instead, the report goes into elaborate detail about who was listed by "dispatch" and CASO's "computer system" as having Brad Czech's land line number and that Schultz traveled to 8253 County Road W in Greenleaf, the address on record in CASO's system for Brad Czech's land line:

    "It should be noted prior to leaving the Sheriff's Dept., I had the 864-7110 number run through our computer system. Dispatch advised it came back to MELISSA SCHULTZ, who resided at 8253 CTH W in Brown County. After checking the area of CTH K, I drove to that residence to see if I could locate MELISSA SCHULTZ. I arrived at the CTH W address at approximately 9:40 a.m. I spoke with one resident of that address, identified as RACHEL SCHINDLER. She indicates she and JOHN PROPSON (ph) live together at that address, along with a PETE FRANK who lives in the other apartment. In speaking with RACHEL, she indicates she doesn't know a MELISSA SCHULTZ or a TERESA HALBACH. RACHEL thought that JOHN PROPSON might know MELISSA SCHULTZ. I gave her my name and phone number for him to contact me. It should be noted, he did call back in the afternoon and that phone call was forwarded to Inv. MARK WIEGERT. It should be noted, he did call back in the afternoon and that phone call was forwarded to Inv. MARK WIEGERT. After leaving the CTH W address, I returned to the county by way of Man-Cal Rd. I searched Man-Cal Rd. up to Brant-St. John Rd. in our county. Nothing of interest was found."

    CONTINUED...

    ReplyDelete
  26. magiclougieTuesday, January 16, 2018

    In his report for activity, it states that at approximately 11 a.m. on November 4th Schultz returned to Hilbert High School to search for Brad Czech's number on the internet, even though he confirmed earlier that the land line number belonged to Czech (CASO, page 24):

    "I then stopped at the HILBERT HIGH SCHOOL at approximately 11:00 a.m. By way of the Internet, I searched the 864-7110 number, along with BRADLEY C DJ. While doing so, I came across a website devoted to Dr. MUSIC DJ's. While looking through that website, I did come across the name BRADLEY C who gave several e-mail addresses. I subsequently went to BRADLEY C's website. That website was www.bradleyc.com. While looking through the BRADLEY C website, I found a couple of photos showing an adult male, later identified as BRADLEY CZECH, with TERESA HALBACH. After finding these websites, I printed these pages and subsequently gave copies of that information to the investigative staff."

    At 11:10 a.m. on November 4th, Schultz "notified" Pagel of photos he found on Brad's website while he was at Hilbert High School for the second time that morning (CASO, page 24).

    "I also notified Sheriff PAGEL of the photos."

    However, according to CASO's dispatch log, Schultz was not at Hilbert High School a second time on November 4th. Instead, Schultz was at CASO at 11:10 a.m. on November 4th.

    At 11:52 a.m. on November 4th, Schultz was at CASO (per CASO dispatch log), where he spoke in person to Pagel and Dedering (CASO, page 24).

    "After returning to the Sheriff's Dept. and speaking with him [Pagel] and Inv. DEDERING, I was advised that a BRADLEY CZECH lived at 6693 HWY 57, Trailer 19, in Greenleaf. I was requested to go to that address to see if I could ascertain if that subject lived there."

    At 12:25 p.m. on November 4th (per CASO dispatch log), Pagel sent Schultz to Brad Czech's home in Greenleaf, Wisconsin (CASO, page 24), where Schultz had spent the morning driving around, yet Schultz had never tried to find Czech's home, even though he had called Czech's land line to confirm his number.

    At 12:52 p.m. on November 4th, Schultz arrived at Czech's home (CASO, page 24 -- "at approximately 2:10 p.m., Inv. WIEGERT and Inv. DEDERING arrived and approached the residence to conduct their interview").

    ReplyDelete
  27. magiclougieWednesday, January 17, 2018

    [–]MnAtty[S]

    There had to be people discussing it like this, assuming one person couldn't have set it up themselves.

    Actually, there's no way it could have been one person in LE or with the prosecution, who reasoned through how to force an improbable version of the narrative. If one person in LE had tried to sell this idea to the rest, he would have been laughed out of the room.

    So the narrative must have been cobbled together by a group. They had to keep going until they had at least a nominal answer for every doubt about the sequence of events.

    And many answers were only nominal. There's quite a bit of nonsense in their version of events.

    [–]lickity_snickum

    Cobbled is the operative word; 1-2 accidentally killed her, one of them went to one guy in LE, who called one MORE higher up on the food chain.

    In the meantime, two accidentally stumbled on what was going on

    The big one one sent in Kratz & Fassbender

    Eight total that know about it and it’s a mess because any number of the STARTED to cover it up and realized it had to be tied together neatly

    Get the Averys off the property, keep the coroner away, and the dogs somewhere else, rush the death certificate through

    Everybody but the original 8 yes-bossed this bitch together.

    People who figured it out afterwards got the hell out of Dodge.

    [–]MnAtty[S]

    Funny you should mention that. I was just thinking, how the blood in the vehicle would indicate that they didn't have complete control over the deposit of evidence. They wouldn't have chosen to do this.

    This was the scenario they had to begin with. At least up until the time she was in the back, this was an independent situation. Going forward, they had to fit this into their narrative.

    [–]Sashasrevenge

    One thing we do know is that the killer put TH into the back of the Rav4 because the killer was not at the final destination he needed to be at to dispose of the body.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/7qrmlp/why_would_he_put_her_in_the_back_of_her_own_car/

    ReplyDelete
  28. magiclougieWednesday, January 17, 2018

    Right now, I feel like I may have finally taken all that string from the unraveled sweater and pieced it back together—to tell the real story.... (self.TickTockManitowoc)

    submitted 11 hours ago * by MnAtty

    I was responding to one of our TTM regulars, and I stumbled upon what feels momentous—I feel like I'm Columbo, and I've just cracked the case.

    I'm copy/pasting it here. The original discussion was under the opinion, "Why would he put her in the back of her own car? He wouldn't."

    I start out responding to the point, that they had no interest in the bullets laying in the garage during the first days of the search. Why the sudden interest months later?

    YOU ARE RIGHT—NO INTEREST, until they wanted to expand their narrative. That says it all.

    Plus, the search for bullets in the garage screamed "set up." People were target practicing there for years. It's hard to even accept that they treated a search through dusty old bullet casings as being reasonable. That would be like checking all the quarters in every meter in town to determine whether one was involved in a murder.

    You couldn't actually propose such a search. It was (1) too broad; and (2) what did they know that they should not have known? Could it be that the DNA was a lock? Of course it was.

    And showcasing a little pop gun like a .22? It was exactly one thing—the pop gun was hanging on a wall in his home, so they scored "felon in possession." This gave them a running start start on the case.

    But later, they decided they needed more. Their obsession with winning this case fried their common sense to crispy, smoking little ashes. Digging up the bullets became necessary only after they had transitioned to their "murder theory 2.0" (a.k.a. "place her in the garage.")

    New theory? New evidence? No problem. Call the boy in.

    But the kicker is—and this goes back to the beginning of the case again, and the "felon in possession" charge that they used to make certain there would be no dismissal. They had already documented months before, how they had observed a .22 hanging on his bedroom wall. They gathered that information on a previous visit, and then waited for the right time.

    This may be the strongest proof that this was all a set up. It was probably when the plan was first hatched. That information must have burned in their hands.

    CONTINUED...

    ReplyDelete
  29. magiclougieWednesday, January 17, 2018

    The tipping point had to have been Kocourek's deposition. He even paid his lawyer to fight it in court. If he hadn't done that, I wouldn't have paid any attention to him.

    But what Kocourek did reeked of desperation. I don't know why he thought it, but he thought he was facing ruin. Something really bad was in store for him. He couldn't chance a perjury charge, and he couldn't reveal the truth. It was time for the showdown.

    The dates are a perfect match. Kocourek couldn't take it anymore, so he pulled the trigger. There's no other way to read this. They wouldn't have been so "on the nose," but in their worst nightmares, they couldn't have imagined us.

    Their prior knowledge of the gun's existence—even its location—should have ruled it out as a charge. Instead, they held onto their ace until it was time to play it.

    Ethical qualms? They couldn't spell "ethical qualms."

    Now this would be what I call an "open and shut" case. They've proven a lot of things to us—but it's all been about their own wrongdoing. Not too smart.

    You know what gives this case away? They had far too much evidence of a particular variety. And I just noticed today, that Lenk and Colborn were present at every search.

    Nothing coincidental in the entire case. It almost gets boring.

    Everything "solid" in the case happened to be easily fabricated by LE. And it's not that they fabricated evidence, but that they fabricated way too much (and got caught many times, in many ways, tipping their hand). The .22 was an item waiting in place, well in advance. That's evidence of premeditation—malice aforethought.

    Every possible hurdle in this case had been mapped out ahead of time. How could they have known to bar the coroner? That's not a spontaneous act. That's not a crime of opportunity.

    Everything was laid out, just like their best clothes, the night before. If they hadn't been so thorough, they wouldn't have set my wheels in motion. It was all too perfect. It set my busy little brain into action.

    CONTINUED...

    ReplyDelete
  30. magiclougieWednesday, January 17, 2018

    [–]MnAtty[S]

    Oh yeah—they totally framed him. It helps to accept this and move on. It clears your mind, and makes analyzing the case much easier.

    It's been a while since I felt the need to single out one or two masterminds within the department. I think it was more likely, that a significant majority were aware of what was happening. They participated to varying degrees, depending on their comfort level with sending an innocent man to prison. After all, it was Avery. He had humiliated them, he was going to ruin their careers and they hated him anyway.

    I think there were some Calumet officers who wanted the investigation to be fair, or at least to wash their hands of the process. Some members of the canine group didn't seem to get the memo about Avery's guilt.

    A case this large required a lot of manpower. Starting with the extraordinary eight-day search of ASY (and obviously much earlier involvement—"is Avery in custody yet?"), all the way through to serving pizza during jury deliberations, the Manitowoc sheriff's department guided this case to their intended conclusion.

    And then they worked tirelessly over the years. They tried to prevent the documentary from being released. They gladly accepted the gracious assistance of the Wisconsin Attorney General's Office. They made certain Dassey didn't breath a single day of fresh air pursuant to Duffin's award of a writ of habeas corpus.

    The Manitowoc Sheriff's Department was like a family. Their family was at war with the Avery family, as much as the Hatfields were at war with the McCoys. There could be only one winner in this battle and the sheriff's department held all the power, controlled the message and owned the town.

    They were the only ones who could have curbed their own abuse of power, but they just didn't have a drop of mercy in them.

    I guess I'm sounding flippant today. It's just that—I didn't sign up for any of this, and I'm not going to go along with it. The emperor has no clothes—hooah (shout out to the Marines, and to better people everywhere).

    https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/7qzgbu/right_now_i_feel_like_i_may_have_finally_taken/

    ReplyDelete
  31. magiclougieSaturday, January 20, 2018

    The flyover on 11/4 was between 13.19 pm and 17.54 pm

    https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/7rime2/november_4_and_5_compared_for_rav_area_similar/

    November 4 and 5 Compared for RAV Area * Similar Footage from CASO Flyover * 5 Contact Sheets Added (self.TickTockManitowoc)

    submitted 1 day ago by seekingtruthforgood

    The RAV location is what fascinates me most for the flyover footage, so it's the first area I focused on when reviewing the almost 23,000 images I captured from the video. Included are 5 contact sheets from Adobe that display a sampling of footage from what is believed to be November 4 and November 5.

    It's quite striking, and if I didn't have the actual file data, honestly, I would not be able to tell which images are from which days.

    How could two different plane types, with supposedly two different flights, and two different camera operators, produce such coincidental similarities?

    https://imgur.com/SvwcEWN

    https://imgur.com/sR7qpbY

    https://imgur.com/KvmORh2

    https://imgur.com/ymic5l1

    https://imgur.com/fgQnVqA

    [–]seekingtruthforgood[S] 6 points 22 hours ago

    Yes... I can see definite themes in the images, including weather, sun, time of day, based on sun, locality, etc. I found a really interesting area by the pond and crusher... It's incredible. I have to find the related footage because I cant believe I didn't see this before... it could be blurry and/or so crazy and fast, we didn't see it. Anyway, it's suppossed to be from the 4th but it is kind of similar to footage from the 5th. Same is true for this field, in which I see irregular tire tracks, and which seem to lead right to a make shift road going down to the pond/crusher area. The camera man hit that specific spot on both days... weird, being that 2 different people were suppossedly taking this footage. There's a lot to digest, so I'll keep looking at it.


    [–]Shamrockholmes9 4 points 19 hours ago

    Great post. I haven't had a chance to look at these pics yet because I can't open them on my work computer, but I was wondering if any of the pics or footage show more water in the pond, because I don't believe it rained until after their flyover on the 5th. So if there is a noticeable increase in water level in the pond, it would likely be after the 5th. It apparently hadn't rained there in awhile until late afternoon/evening of the 5th. And if they are trying to pass footage off taken after the 5th as being from the 4th, well that's obviously a problem.

    [–]seekingtruthforgood[S] 2 points 19 hours ago

    I'll take a look and see what I can find on that. I did find footage I had not seen before of the crusher area. Looks kind of dry...

    [–]s_wardy_s 2 points 17 hours ago*

    It hadn't rained for over 4 days, though Nov 5 apparently had a bit of rain:

    https://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KMTW/2005/10/31/WeeklyHistory.html

    Mind you looking at this picture there's not much water in the pond on the 5th:

    http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Exhibit-162-RAV4-Covered-By-Tarps.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  32. magiclougieSunday, February 25, 2018

    [–]dugdiggins

    "Why not cremate the victim's body instead of using someone else's cremains?"

    Maybe there wasn't a body for the framers to plant because the killer had dumped Teresa's body in Lake Michigan or Lake Winnebago.

    The body couldn't be recovered from the lake and planted, so the only option the framers had was to plant cremated bones and teeth (they didn't need a whole body or all the teeth, just partial cremains).

    Then to explain how the body was cremated, the framers needed witnesses to state that Steven had a bonfire on 10/31.

    The first statement by a witness claiming that Steven had a bonfire on 10/31 was in WB's report of activity for Nov 14th (this is excluding JR's 11/5 handwritten statement of "observing a fire on the Avery property contained to a 55-gallon drum").

    http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Exhibit-84-Handwritten-Statement-of-Joshua-Radandt.pdf

    The cremains allegedly were found on Nov 8th but no witnesses mentioned a bonfire until Barb's Nov 14th interview with WB (CASO page 264):

    "Barbara said when she returned home at 8:00 p.m., she did see a rather large fire, approximately three feet high, in the pit at Steven's garage. She said she could tell there were two people standing there; however, does not know who that was. Barbara said Scott made the comment, 'Look how big the fire is.' Barbara stated she went into the house to tell whoever was in the house at the time that she was going to be leaving for a short time...Barbara stated when she returned home around midnight, she did not recall seeing the fire at that time."

    In a CASO report prior to Nov 14th (Steier, 11/5, page 79), JR's 11/5 statement is exaggerated as him "observing a large fire on the Steven Avery property by the red house":

    "RADANDT informed Inv. STEIER on Monday shortly after 4:30 p.m., RADANDT was driving to his deer camp through his quarry where he observed a large fire on the STEVEN AVERY property located by the red house. RADANDT indicates he remembers it being right after 4:30 because he had had an employee that had just come to work to take another employee's shift at 4:30 p.m. RADANDT indicated it was a parlly cloudy or partly sunny day and he had clear visibility from his location while he was driving to his deer camp. RADANDT indicated he did not observe any people standing next to the fire or any vehicles located on the AVERY properly."

    JR explained in his 2017 affidavit that LE pressured him to describe the fire as a large fire behind Steven's garage, in an open burn pit, even though in his written statement Radandt described it simply as a fire contained to a 55-gallon drum. JR refused to change his statement so he wasn't called to testify.

    http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Exhibit-85-Affidavit-of-Joshua-Radandt.pdf

    With Barb on Nov 14th, and then Scott on Nov 29th (trial exhibit 357), claiming Steven had a large fire behind his garage on 10/31, eventually Steven himself came to believe he had a bonfire on 10/31.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/7ykpom/the_teeth_or_lack_thereof_is_a_critical_piece_of/

    ReplyDelete
  33. magiclougieSunday, April 08, 2018

    So... I'm Starting to Understand (but not agree with) Mike Halbach self.MakingaMurderer

    Submitted 2 years ago * by M_Tootles

    I used to "hate" Mike. Having done a fair amount of additional research, I don't anymore. (Nor do I think Steven or Brandon did it!)

    The sketchy stuff he and Hillegas seem to have pulled with the voice mails coupled with their possible collusion with the Sheriff's office in the "discovery" of the RAV4 initially made me loathe these two and finger them as possible suspects.

    Now that a couple days have passed since I watched the series and I've done significant outside reading, my feelings have grown more nuanced.

    I thought about that a lot, and I proposed a theory about why, if Mike and Ryan are both innocent of the murder, they might have acted so strangely/awkwardly during the initial investigation here:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3y165w/new_theory_to_explain_hillegass_and_mikes/

    (TL;DR: Ryan was stalking her a fair bit, admitted this to Mike and was terrified of being blamed for killing her, they colluded to delete "incriminating" voice mails and were possibly "used" by the Sheriff to find the RAV4 that was either planted there or that the Sheriff's office found during an illegal search on Nov. 3.)

    I think Mike was always riddled with some guilt about how he and Hillegas tampered with the evidence and/or colluded with the Sheriff on the RAV4, and may have harbored some doubts about Hillegas's innocence. But I think he desperately wanted to believe the cops/prosecutors "have the right guy". Thus his awkward forced "confidence"/bravado in the press conferences was as much about making himself feel better about what was happening -- which on some level he had to know didn't quite smell right -- as anything else.

    Cognitive Dissonance: it's a bitch.

    We can "hate" him for his attitude, or realize that without having our sister murdered, it's hard to know what it's like when the cops are telling you: "OK, we're going to prosecute these two people and only these two people and we're done investigating" and you're at bottom not entirely certain they're correct.

    Mike Halbach just desperately wanted to believe in the story they were telling, since it was the only story they were ever going to pursue. The cognitive dissonance of knowing the trial was a sham on some level explains his bizarrely over the top statements of confidence throughout the trial.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3y53xn/so_im_starting_to_understand_but_not_agree_with/

    ReplyDelete
  34. magiclougieMonday, April 09, 2018

    Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos discuss (1) their thoughts on Teresa as well as the Halbach family and their “disappointing” meeting with M. Halbach, (2) the revealing 2010 post conviction testimony of Ken Kratz, and (3) their fear that harm might come to them if they returned to Manitowoc County

    submitted 7 hours ago * by Temptedious

    JCCSF Arts & Ideas Interview (00:10:46)

    Interviewer:

    And you did, obviously, reach out to the different parties in the case. You reached out to the prosecutors you reached out to the families of the victims, and they just didn’t want to have anything to do with it, or?

    Ricciardi:

    Yeah, we cast a wide net. We always say we sought universal access and got something less than that. We wrote letters to potential subjects, we wrote to Ken Kratz, we wrote to Penny Bernsteen, who was the victim in 1985 --

    Interviewer:

    From the earlier case.

    Ricciardi:

    (nodding) -- we wrote to the Halbach’s. We actually waited several months before writing to the Halbach’s, you know, out of respect for the family. And we sat down for coffee with Mike Halbach and he told us at that point that they were not interested in participating and that, um -- that conversation was sort of disappointing but very sobering in a way. I mean, you know , we had empathy for the Halbach’s. We thought they were in the worst of circumstances. I mean they not only lost a daughter and a sister but to have this unfolding in a very high profile, very charged atmosphere made it much worse. And, you know, the narrative that emerged about how this young woman died and what happened to her body was just horrific. So we tried to approach the Halbach’s in a very sensitive way and explain to them that we were not there to try to be exploitative in any way or capitalize on this tragedy, but to really try and examine, through Steven, the health of the criminal justice system.

    The interviewer here does not follow up with a question about the meeting and Ricciardi does not elaborate, however, in a separate interview Demos offers her own slightly more detailed recollection of this meeting with Mike Halbach.

    CONTINUED...

    ReplyDelete
  35. magiclougieMonday, April 09, 2018

    “Here’s the Thing”, Podcast (00:21:30)

    Interviewer:

    I want to talk about one of the more disturbing figures in the show and that is Halbach’s brother. This guy was velvety and seamless and did not seem to be mourning his sister at all. What was your opinion of the brother?

    Ricciardi:

    Well I -- there is an interesting detail, when Dean and Jerry first came to represent Steven Avery one of their earlier motions they brought, they were going to seek a gag order essentially against the state because, you might recall back in November of 2005 when Law Enforcement took over the Avery property for 8 days of searches there were daily televised press conferences, and they also aired on the radio and in print. And as soon as these private attorneys came to represent Steven they wanted to put a stop to that. And what happened was the two sides ultimately entered into a stipulation and said okay neither side will talk to the press we won’t do anymore pre trial publicity. But I think what is interesting to note is that Mike Halbach, who was essentially the spokesperson for the Halbach family, it seems he was passed the torch from Ken Kratz because Mike Halbach continued to speak to the press. He was essentially channelling the State’s narrative. I mean, he was saying explicitly what matters to our family is that Steven Avery is convicted of this crime.

    Interviewer:

    Did you interview them at all? Did any of the Halbachs agree to be interviewed?

    Demos:

    They did not. I mean like most of our subjects we wrote a letter to them, introducing ourselves and the project and what our goals were and that resulted in us eventually having coffee with Mike Halbach. What my recollection of what Mike told us was -- well, because we had described that we wanted to look at the American criminal justice system and how we think there’s a lot to be learned from this case and the relationship to the past case, what with Steven’s wrongful conviction and what’s happening now. And Mike told us he didn’t think there were any problems with the justice system, and said there’s nothing to be learned from Steven Avery. So here was a man who believed that Steven Avery had murdered his sister. And Steven Avery had served 18 years in prison as an innocent man, so potentially the narrative was that because Avery was in prison for 18 years that he was now a murderer. So how could he at the same time say, there’s nothing wrong with the American criminal justice system?

    I think Moira was trying to say, in her own way, she didn’t understand how MH seemed to have absolute faith (even long before the evidence was presented at trial) that this time they got the right man and Avery was surely guilty. “We love the police!” And even though Avery had been wrongfully convicted under remarkably similar circumstances 20 years prior (which of course resulted in serious consequences for women in the community) there was apparently no problem with the justice system and nothing to be learned from Avery’s remarkable situation.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/8b11ps/laura_ricciardi_and_moira_demos_discuss_1_their/

    ReplyDelete
  36. magiclougieSunday, July 15, 2018

    Mike Halbach knew Teresa was dead. Every interview is very telling.

    https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=8&ved=0ahUKEwjto9-m3fbXAhVF1oMKHdSuC1gQwqsBCCMwBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fm.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DfVerPBOY1xs&usg=AOvVaw1ON6CY70FkmV7ZvBUqx7dh

    https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=6&ved=0ahUKEwjto9-m3fbXAhVF1oMKHdSuC1gQwqsBCB0wBQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fm.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D0V8mlAgZ7HM&usg=AOvVaw0nj6L4OCqyPqfrAe4Po2uF

    https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwi60M343vbXAhVi4oMKHTd3AJwQwqsBCA0wAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fm.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DGRa7yPDjBzk&usg=AOvVaw0U3oUHSI02ddvIwxIVE8Ch

    https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwi60M343vbXAhVi4oMKHTd3AJwQwqsBCBAwAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fm.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D1HOgARK8V1E&usg=AOvVaw08wfoSHR0tG9USXxEFMxWC

    https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwi60M343vbXAhVi4oMKHTd3AJwQwqsBCBMwAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fm.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D9OkBVbfakAw&usg=AOvVaw0uvh1wn67xQunKQRZ-mA23

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. magiclougieSunday, July 15, 2018

      "I don't ever want to be in this position again" (self.TickTockManitowoc)
      by FlowerInMirror

      I came upon this video.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0nr4JQvgSs

      MH sure had some weird word choices : "...We didn't choose to be in this position. I don't ever want to be in this position again.". What's that supposed to be mean? Another family member to be murdered? Or not to be involved in the framing again? I bet it's not a pleasant experience.

      Judging by Barb's anger, my guess is she must have been shocked by the verdict because LE promised her something different. They probably promised her that BD would have gotten lenient treatment since he was a minor in exchange of BoD and ST's perjury. But they didn't keep the promise and blind sided her and there's nothing she could do.

      She yelled out "I think the Halbach's set up the whole sh*t up. I really do". So she didn't think SA killed TH?

      "The same Manitowoc Deputy who helped send her son to prison" - was it the ubiquitous Andy?

      [–]s_wardy_s

      The thing that gets me about the Halbachs, is the mother's deadpan expression when the verdict was read out in court. I've watched many a verdict read out in court and the usual reaction of someone being convicted of murdering a mothers child', is at minimum one of relief and satisfaction, and at most one of cries of joy and angst at the same time. But deadpan? KH knew something and her reaction supported that.

      [–]jakse1

      The reactions of a victim's family at a guilty verdict are usually highly emotional and raw. I've always felt it was a mixture of relief, a feeling of some closure, but also a realization it's final and real and their loved one is gone forever.

      Delete
    2. magiclougieSunday, July 15, 2018

      [–]jakse1

      Wow!! Watching MH's body language and his words, it very much looks like there is some guilt he's feeling and lies he's telling. Once again, MH acts suspiciously and says very odd things under the circumstances. Yes, I realize people grieve differently but his behavior seems so off for someone who is suppose to believe his sister was brutally raped and murdered.

      He says, "there are two different people who HELPED murder my sister". Odd choice of words and usually a victim's family doesn't "sugar coat" what happened to their family member. They say "this person (and name him) brutally murdered my --- and justice was served". They want people to know their pain and know what a monster the murderer was.

      Then he says "and WE brought...sent both of them to prison...WE don't want to be the ones to have to do it" and "we didn't choose to be in this position". What in the hell? Your sisters been brutally raped and murdered and you didn't want to be the ones to send the "murderers" to prison? And why the need to let people know you didn't choose this? Does anyone "choose" to have their family member murdered (well sometimes they do, I guess)? What about talking about getting justice for Teresa or sadness she still is never coming back?

      And then he says "I don't ever want to be in this position again". Well, another obvious because nobody wants their loved one murdered. But he sounds far more focused on his role and his part in the outcome rather than his sisters death and justice for her.

      Maybe if it was an isolated incident with him, but it's every interview. He just seems disconnected from the actual murder.

      In one interview when they found the car, he's clearly a nervous wreck about what RH might say and covering their asses rather than the fact they just found her car and being focused on that discovery and where could she be and what that all means and hoping she's safe and hoping they find clues to lead to her, etc.

      In another, he talks about the grieving process when there's no evidence she's even dead. Then after the bones are found but before testing confirms they are hers, he speaks as if he's certain it's her and when asked what if they aren't hers he says something like "we'll that would be a problem". Really? Finding out there is still a chance she is alive would be a problem? Only a problem if you are in on the conspiracy.

      Usually families in that situation hold onto any and all hope that the person is alive and coming back. Even when a body is found that could be their loved one, they usually seem in denial it's them and want absolute confirmation before really accepting it.

      Also in this video, notice the MANY partial shoulder shrugs (which indicates deception) and his head shaking no when he talks about them helping murder his sister and not choosing to be in this situation and having to send them to prison, which is another indication of deception.

      https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/7gvohc/i_dont_ever_want_to_be_in_this_position_again/

      Delete
    3. magiclougieSunday, July 15, 2018

      RH, in Nov 2005: "Police tell us where to search.." RH at trial "Police did not give us any instructions or direction." (self.TickTockManitowoc)
      by Altwolf

      https://imgur.com/a/VnjyH

      This is old news (literally) but I hadn't seen the Nov article before, which makes it pretty clear how much Police WERE directing the search efforts.

      Nov 9, 2005: Greenbay Press Gazette:

      "H..... works closely with Police. He meets with them daily. They tell him the areas to search, what would be helpful and what would be "getting in the way". And he stays in touch with them by cell phone."

      Aug 06, 2006: The Post Crescent:

      "Calumet County Sgt. Mark Weigert and RH, a friend of Halbach's who coordinated the volunteer searchers, testified that police did not direct the search or give any instructions to searchers."

      [–]jakse1

      What's more troubling to me is how involved RH was especially with communicating with police. Why isn't the point person TH mom or one of her brothers, especially in dealing with police? I wonder if RH phone records would show calls to MH or KH after calls with police...at least to relay whatever the police are communicating to him.

      It's just so odd the police would be going through RH to get access to TH items at her house, asking about insurance claim and damage to car, briefing him daily, etc. I could understand talking to him about searches since he was heading that up. But it's like her family is just hanging out in the background which is so unusual for most missing person cases.

      Is there any footage of any of them making a plea for her to come home, talking directly to her through the camera, or talking to potential abductor through camera, or begging for public to help? I remember one interview with KH where she is looking through old photos with a sadness about her but looks more like sadness over memories. Where was the frantic family desparately searching?

      Was MH or KH at TH's house on the 3rd when police were there or did police go to KH house to meet with her then too? I don't recall seeing reports about police meeting with her..just the initial phone call.

      [–]SilkyBeesKnees

      It is troubling. Also quite peculiar is the fact that after the RAV was found no family showed up to the ASY with flashlights and crowbars in hand to begin searching and calling for her all night long. It's unreasonable to wait until the next day. Avery would have let them search, we've already seen that, so why didn't they? What if she'd been held captive, hours from death somewhere on that property? How could they have known that wasn't the case?

      [–]jakse1

      Exactly! Why is POG the one venturing out to the salvage yard instead of her mom, stepdad, and brothers? And there is no way in hell, if my child was missing and they found the car, I would accept LE NOT immediately opening up that car. I would have ended up arrested because I would have gone nuts knowing the car is there with possible clues to her whereabouts and LE was not even attempting to search for clues and waited until the next day to process it.

      They knew she was dead and the car's only value to them was to link it to SA. POG seemed to know it as well because her call never mentions TH...sounded like she was on a scavenger hunt and calling to confirm she won. Wonder if her phone records would show a call to KH after hanging up with LE. Doubt it.

      https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/7esrzw/rh_in_nov_2005_police_tell_us_where_to_search_rh/

      Delete
  37. magiclougieSunday, December 09, 2018

    Pagel's duping delight

    https://t.co/QLvesqU0Ag

    TickTockManitowoc
    ‏@TManitowoc
    Jan 24

    If you think Ryan Hillegas has duper's delight, he is an absolute ROOKIE compared to Jerry Pagel.

    I present to you the infamous WBAY 11/4 footage. If you don't get absolutely CREEPED OUT with what we know since MAM, I dunno what would.

    https://www.wbay.com/video?vid=414934124

    :43 seconds in

    https://twitter.com/TManitowoc/status/956435961583321089

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)