Scott Tadych was working third shift at an aluminium foundry when Teresa Halbach went missing.
"Untrained law enforcement officer" Ryan Hillegas wrote the Sikikey letter to help blackmail Scott Tadych into cooperating with the framing of Steven Avery.
Keep in mind, I gave the answer to the handwriting comparison before, and only a couple people seemed to catch it, I think.— TickTockManitowoc (@TManitowoc) September 18, 2019
On May 12th 2006, Dedering checked the Sikikey letter out of evidence. At the same time, Wiegert had checked out Ryan's map/drawing.
What were they up to? pic.twitter.com/6HfsgczaMV
Note: You don’t need to call the police when you hit a deer. You can do a self report. The form is available on the internet. Also you don’t need a police report to make an insurance claim. The damage is obvious and the claims examiner sees plenty of deer hit in this area. A false claim would be easy to see. Also, with sheriff’s resources spread very thin, they don’t necessarily have time to respond to every deer hit in Wisconsin.
PROOF:— AC (@Rookie1082) April 19, 2019
Bobby Dassey's deer, which at trial said was on 11/3 (and lied about a hide the body joke with Mike O), was actually on 11/4. We've all seen the police report.
Bobby called MTSO only one time: 11/4.
Why lie about an innocent deer? @JButing #makingamurderer pic.twitter.com/kFwdazTZBq
The deer that Bobby Dassey claimed was "road kill" on 11/3 and which he tagged on the morning of 11/4 could not have been the deer reportedly killed on HWY 147 near Jambo Creek Road at 7:30 PM on 11/4.
There was a lot of activity on the Avery property the morning of November 4th. Bobby was pretty busy removing the deer from the hanger in his garage, placing the deer in his truck, driving to Mobile on WI-310 to get the deer tagged, coming back, hanging up the deer again in his garage... and all these activities were done at the same time as Remiker and Lenk were doing their "friendly" search of Steven's trailer, inside and outside.
Barb's version: deer gutted on roadside, taken home, skinned together with Bobby in garage.
Bobby's version: skinned deer with Mike Osmunson, Steven showed up -- there was the joke about "helping get rid of a body."
The reason the deer story ever came up had to do with the Mike Osmunson story that Bobby told at trial, in which he said Mike was over to help with or see the deer, that Steven came to the garage also to see the deer, asked Mike about helping to hide a body. Bobby says this occurred on 11/3, before he knew Teresa was missing. Mike says it was 11/10, which was the only time he says he was in Bobby's garage during that time. But Mike didn't testify; what they have is his statement, apparently. Strang points out that it couldn't have been 11/10 because Steven was arrested on 11/9. Steven says, in an affidavit, that it was 11/4, and that it was Mike who asked if Steven was hiding a body.
In Barb's version of the deer story, Bobby called up the MTSO about claiming the deer. Wouldn't that be on dispatch records?
Why does Barb feel the need to include herself in this story as such an active participant? She stands nothing to gain by having us believe she was actively participating in chopping us this roadkill deer.
There should be no reason for Barb to include herself in this. Bobby never tells her version of the story. There has to be something to it.
Barb, in her statement on 11/6, says the deer was hit and she saw it on her way home from work; she "thinks it was 11/3." It was dark, she said. She asked Bobby if he wanted to claim the deer, and they went to get it, got a tag at the 310 Mobile, hung the deer up in the garage, skinned it, and removed only tenderloins that night. This all happened the same evening/night, according to Barb, which she "thinks" was 11/3.
There should be no reason for Barb to include herself in this. Bobby never tells her version of the story. There has to be something to it.
Barb, in her statement on 11/6, says the deer was hit and she saw it on her way home from work; she "thinks it was 11/3." It was dark, she said. She asked Bobby if he wanted to claim the deer, and they went to get it, got a tag at the 310 Mobile, hung the deer up in the garage, skinned it, and removed only tenderloins that night. This all happened the same evening/night, according to Barb, which she "thinks" was 11/3.
Barb "thinks" it was 11/3 but says the deer tag would show the correct date. Well, the deer tag shows 11/4, and Bobby says he got the tag the next morning, 11/4, not that night. Bobby said he skinned the deer when he brought it back home, and that Mike was over that night; he doesn't mention his mother being involved.
Hunters leave deer hanging more than a day (unless it's very warm), with hide left on, but Barb would have us believe they gutted a roadkill deer on the side of the road, in the dark, and, on that same night, skinned the deer and chopped it up.
Bobby said he got the deer on 11/3, tagged it at the 310 Mobile the morning of 11/4, took the deer back home, rehung it, and scun it out.
The deer hanging in the Dassey garage had to have been skinned and butchered by 11/4, like Bobby says, because LE commandeered the Avery property starting on the morning of 11/5.
There is a call from the Dassey phone to MTSO on 11/4 for the deer hit by a car at 7:30 PM on 11/4. But this roadkill deer could not be the deer Bobby had hanging in his mother's garage the day before.
Bobby Dassey's testimony:
Hunters leave deer hanging more than a day (unless it's very warm), with hide left on, but Barb would have us believe they gutted a roadkill deer on the side of the road, in the dark, and, on that same night, skinned the deer and chopped it up.
Bobby said he got the deer on 11/3, tagged it at the 310 Mobile the morning of 11/4, took the deer back home, rehung it, and scun it out.
The deer hanging in the Dassey garage had to have been skinned and butchered by 11/4, like Bobby says, because LE commandeered the Avery property starting on the morning of 11/5.
There is a call from the Dassey phone to MTSO on 11/4 for the deer hit by a car at 7:30 PM on 11/4. But this roadkill deer could not be the deer Bobby had hanging in his mother's garage the day before.
Bobby Dassey's testimony:
Q. And I want to be clear about that, even though your mom had called about the tag, you actually took the deer to get it tagged?
A. Yes.
Q. Because she was off to work on a Friday morning?
A. Yes.
Q. November 4 was Friday?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you bring the deer back and you have the deer tagged, I assume, right?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do with the deer at that point?
A. I hung it up again and scun it out.
The confusion and coverup of the deer may not be important to the case. Bobby may just be covering up the fact that he has not tagged a deer he hunted, as is required by nearly every state. You are technically required to purchase the tag before hunting the animal. If you are found guilty of hunting an animal without a tag, then you are poaching.
Poaching laws are very strict. Some states will force you to forfeit your hunting license for 5-10 years, pay upwards of $5,000 in fines, and face jail time.
The truth most likely is:
On 11/3/05, Bobby killed a deer while reportedly bow hunting for geese. And he claimed the roadkill deer on 11/4/05 to cover up the fact that he had poached the other deer on 11/3/05, which could lead to fines and loss of his hunting privileges. Note that it's very rare for people to process any animal hit by vehicles because most of the meat is unusable due to being bloodshot (bruising).
MTSO CAD system creates timestamps for all incidents electronically. Notice the difference in the MTSO CAD reports above for September 2004 and the one printed in 2018 for November 2005. The one printed in 2018 is in a different format and appears to be falsified. Plus, there should have been MTSO radio dispatch audio for 11/4/2005, but none was provided when requested via FOIA (there are dispatch narratives for November 4th but no corresponding dispatch audio traffic from that day).
The confusion and coverup of the deer may not be important to the case. Bobby may just be covering up the fact that he has not tagged a deer he hunted, as is required by nearly every state. You are technically required to purchase the tag before hunting the animal. If you are found guilty of hunting an animal without a tag, then you are poaching.
Poaching laws are very strict. Some states will force you to forfeit your hunting license for 5-10 years, pay upwards of $5,000 in fines, and face jail time.
The truth most likely is:
On 11/3/05, Bobby killed a deer while reportedly bow hunting for geese. And he claimed the roadkill deer on 11/4/05 to cover up the fact that he had poached the other deer on 11/3/05, which could lead to fines and loss of his hunting privileges. Note that it's very rare for people to process any animal hit by vehicles because most of the meat is unusable due to being bloodshot (bruising).
Deer poachers fined over $20,000, lose hunting, fishing and trapping privileges for many years
News Release Published: October 4, 2006 by the South Central Region
DARLINGTON - Three southwest Wisconsin men and a fourth from Iowa involved in deer poaching-related violations late last year must pay a total of $20,612 in fines resulting from two Department of Natural Resources investigations. Three also lost their hunting, fishing and trapping privileges for a combined total of 25 years.
The Lafayette County Circuit Court assessed the significant fines and loss of outdoor privileges, along with jail sentences, probation and confiscation of weapons during sentencing on Sept. 20 for the four men who violated many of the state's deer hunting regulations and "endangered the safety of Lafayette County residents in the process," said DNR conservation warden Jeffrey King, Darlington.
Fleeing from a Lafayette County Sheriff's Deputy led to the arrest of Adam M. Bussan, of Dubuque, IA, and Michael V. Thoma, of rural Platteville, both 21. Warden King had received complaints about deer being shot with small caliber rifles in the vicinity of Belmont Mound State Park.
[...]
Later that night, warden King and warden Frost caught two suspects near Blackhawk Road in Monticello Township, Lafayette County. By night's end, the wardens seized several deer from two homes and Duane A. Heim, 33, of Shullsburg and Anthony L. Mau, 31, of rural Benton eventually faced a total of 41 civil and criminal charges for deer poaching.
Mr. Heim was convicted of shining wild animals in Jan. 2005 and currently revoked from all hunting, fishing and trapping until 2008. He was convicted on Sept. 20 of hunting after revocation, borrowing/possessing another person's deer hunting license, hunting deer without a license and possessing illegal deer. He was fined $5,888, sentenced to two years probation, lost the firearm and bow used to poach deer, and had his lost of outdoor privileges extended through 2013.
Mr. Mau was convicted of hunting deer without a license and possessing illegal deer. He was fined $4,0444, sentenced to nine months in jail, lost all his outdoor privileges through 2015 and the firearm used to poach deer.
"Some of the deer in this case were shot from the road off private property where the suspects had no permission to be," said warden King.
"In both cases, human safety and hunter ethics, or the lack there of, were significant issues and at the heart of the problem. With liberal seasons and nearly unlimited harvest opportunities in Lafayette County, there is no excuse for this behavior," he added.
Warden King encourages citizens and sportsmen and women to report unethical and illegal behavior to the DNR violation hotline at 1-800-TIP-WDNR.
MTSO CAD system creates timestamps for all incidents electronically. Notice the difference in the MTSO CAD reports above for September 2004 and the one printed in 2018 for November 2005. The one printed in 2018 is in a different format and appears to be falsified. Plus, there should have been MTSO radio dispatch audio for 11/4/2005, but none was provided when requested via FOIA (there are dispatch narratives for November 4th but no corresponding dispatch audio traffic from that day).
When Teresa Halbach disappeared, Bobby Dassey worked 10 PM to 6 AM, third shift, at Fisher Hamilton, 1316 18th St, Two Rivers, WI.
The Dassey computer was used to access the internet on October 31, 2005 at 6:05 AM, 6:28 AM, 6:31 AM, 7:00 AM, 9:33 AM, 10:09 AM, 1:08 PM, and 1:51 PM (source).
Bobby's phone records show he was on or near the Avery property at 6:12 AM on October 31st (if he arrived home early from work, it would mean that he clocked out before his shift ended at 6 AM).
Excerpts from the CASO file:
"DASSEY indicated he stayed home until 2330 hours on 10/31/05 and then left for work at HAMILTON MANUFACTURING."
"We subsequently learned that DUANE OSMUNSON worked at the FISHER HAMILTON plant on Columbia Street in the Two Rivers area. Upon checking with the Columbia Street plant, we learned that Mr. OSMUNSON was on vacation."
"We went over his activities to the best of his recollection on Monday, 10/31/05. He stated that he arrived home from work at approximately 0630 hrs (It should be noted that DASSEY was employed at FISHER HAMILTON in Two Rivers at this time) and went to bed. He stated that he got up between 1400 and 1430 hrs., got into the shower and went bow hunting. He stated he arrived home somewhere approximately 1730 hrs. and that it was dark out already. He stated he did not recall who was home when he arrived, but thought perhaps BRENDAN was. He stated that when he arrived home, he went straight to bed and did not eat. He stated he got up at approximately 2100 hrs., got ready for work and once again did not eat."[-] Moonborne11
> I am still confused as to why Kratz didn’t charge bobby with viewing child porn and broadcast the news state wide to further damage Avery’s and Brendan’s reputation.
The porn was used to keep Bobby silent. He was SA's alibi---he saw her leave. That's why Factbender kept the CD.
If Kratz had publicized it, Bobby, most likely, would have told the truth.
ETA: Withholding Denny evidence also helped Kratz.
[-] Kayki7
In all honesty, LE would have had a better case against BoD than BD......so why didn’t they go with BoD and SA instead of BD and SA......you have to wonder.
[–]DominantChord
As said by another here: They needed BoD to place TH going towards SA trailer. BD was in school at that time.
[-] khall122264
The only conclusion I can come up with about the child porn and Bobby is that maybe he was promised the computer evidence would disappear if he would testify to Kratz narrative of what happened.
[–]Colorado_love
Oh that’s absolutely what Kratz did.
They found it, knew who was responsible and hid it, as long as Bobby Dassey said what Kratz told him to.
Kratz came up with the entire narrative. From start to finish.
They NEVER counted on Zellner. They never counted on Making A Murderer having the effect it did.
They thought they were golden...Factbender kept the evidence in his office for how long? Now we all know why.
How this isn’t national news and being discussed all over the place is beyond me.
[–]karmalizing
Definite possibility. Also, I think the "Sikikey" letter is Bobby trying to throw ST under the bus.
[-] Newthingstobeseen
Interesting idea. Never seen that suggestion. I’m usually all about English Language learner or immigrant with sikikey but after reading his chats and the way he wrote, it is a possible theory.
[–]Mr_Precedent
IF Scott was tricked (Sikikey letter) into thinking that SA was guilty and trying to frame HIM, I can understand him being thrilled when SA was convicted.
Unless the act led to direct physical sexual contact with an under-aged victim, the time-limit is 6 years. However, should the Fed's investigate the State's malfeasance regarding this issue and out of that decide to investigate the child porn then there is no federal time-limit for child pornography.
[–]Colorado_love
From what I’ve read they will prosecute CP crimes at the state level IF that state’s punishment is harsher than the federal punishment. Otherwise they prosecute at the federal level, afaik.
[–]Grassroots112
My theory is that they used it to get BoD to comply and become state witness and then kept it as an insurance policy just in case he ever come clean and that’s why he was recently questioned by LE following KZ’s acquisition of the CDs [see video below]. During that questioning he will have no doubt been threatened to stick to the original story...
Why they didn’t bring BoD into the narrative as an accomplice to SA as they eventually did with Brendan doesn’t quite make sense as it seemed a golden opportunity.
Again another theory of mine as to why that didn’t happen is that BoD could be heavily linked or involved with the so-called Club through ST and hunting or have strong ties through other things.
New expensive cars, new expensive houses, well paid job etc. Could that be the work of a network of powerful people who can pull strings and open doors for someone like BoD who given his low level of intellect and education wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford or quite pull off?
Either way that CD or CDs were an insurance policy against someone or some people.
[–]Umbopus
I doubt he changed much.
The abusive way he treated girls online, he no doubt treats his wife the same way. The way he immediately lied when called on his behaviour, I’m sure he’s a proficient pathological liar now. A penchant for vulgarity and perversion, those things don’t go away. If that Duggar brother was on Ashley Madison, you don’t think someone like BoD is out there satisfying his desires?
Leopards don’t change their spots. These things we’ve learned are very clear signs of being a psychopath or at least a sociopath. Whatever his life looks like from the outside, there’s no way the person we saw through his computer data went away.
If he did kill Teresa and even if he hasn’t killed again, I just can’t see how he isn’t living some kind of terrible double life.
Audio of Bobby Dassey's 2017 Interview on Youtube
Bobby's Cell Tower Maps * Maps Here * Exhibit 16
By seekingtruthforgood, TickTockManitowoc
July 12, 2018
Here are the cell tower maps for Bobby's calls (Exhibit 15) from the CD for Exhibit 16 of the "Motion for post-conviction Relief, July 6, 2018.".
Map 1: Map showing distances between Kuss Rd. and nearby Cellcom towers
https://imgur.com/2iayaqL
Map 2: Map showing distances between Cellcom towers and hunting spot
https://imgur.com/K1kUNeI
The two links are the images from Exhibit 16. They were ordered from the circuit court following the filing.
Bobby used to live in Whitelaw. And, that hunting cabin on 147 belongs to someone who lived in Whitelaw. Makes me wonder whether Bobby had a friend still in that area. Also, Earl lives in Whitelaw, he's the guy with two pedophilia felonies, so he's still on my radar.
Cell Tower Tracks for Teresa & Bobby and Scott's Hunting Location
By seekingtruthforgood, TickTockManitowoc
July 12, 2018
Now that we have Bobby's cell tower map from Avery's new motion (exhibit 16,) for me, anyway, a couple of questions are answered, and I think I have a better handle on Teresa's track on October 31.
Included is the link to a map I created which shows my opinion of locations for Bobby, Teresa and Scott based on the combination of the tower ID's provided in exhibit 16, the respective sectors shown in the cell call histories, and statements of Bobby, Blaine and Scott, assuming some of it was truthful.
https://imgur.com/X4S5xPr
Note the following:
Here is a link to two types of tower configurations: AT&T and BellSouth. Notice they are different. My map of the towers, based on the sectors shown in the records, assumes that AT&T is the configuration of the towers on the west side of this area and BellSouth is the configuration on the east side. I have tried several scenarios - these two configurations actually line up perfectly now that we have Bobby's tower map with the exact addresses and sectors of the towers that he was pinging on.
https://imgur.com/g8nN9jg
Bobby and Steven's tower 3701 is in Mishicot.
Bobby and Steven's tower 3681 is down on 310.
I believe tower 3681 is the same tower as Teresa's tower 2110.
This is very important:
Tower 3681 (the same as Teresa's tower 2110) also services Avery's Salvage Yard.
You can see this with Bobby's history, but, more importantly, you can see it with Steve's:
https://imgur.com/qF6Lo8E
Scott reported he went hunting in Kewaunee. This is also very important because Scott reported he went there by going west on 147. Bobby reported he went east.In 2017, Scott says he was hunting "at Heidman Lake in Kewaunee County", but at trial, he said he was in Kewaunee. Why say Kewaunee at all, when the lake is closer to his house than Kewaunee is? pic.twitter.com/58pZ8DB7ew— TickTockManitowoc (@TManitowoc) April 21, 2019
It actually looks like both first went west prior to 3:02 PM and THEN went east at roughly 3:40 PM, ran into Blaine, and headed north, making it into the Kewaunee cell tower area at 3:57 PM.
From there, Bobby tracked south and was pinging on the Two Rivers tower until 6:02 PM.
Teresa, traveling east on 310, went to Zips and then headed north to Avery's. She was leaving Avery's before 2:32, as she turned left toward Larabee and then headed back south on Q.
I have used Q as her route because law enforcement traveled Q, per the pilot on November 4, as they believed that was her route.
If the timing and towers are right, Teresa and Bobby were both in the same general area at 3:02 PM:
1. Teresa was in sector 1 of tower 2110, the Whitelaw tower, which also services the Avery property on the south side; and
2. Bobby was in sector 1 of tower 363, located south of Maribel.
If Scott was with Bobby, they were [close behind or] with Teresa prior to 3:02 PM, before they headed north to Kewaunee, to Scott's hunting location.
[–]seekingtruthforgood[S]
Cell tower stuff is not my forte - so my map is based on assumptions for Teresa.
For Bobby, I used the exhibit (16) and the sector layout that matches the sectors Avery and Bobby were pinging on when home.
So, both are on sector 1 of 370 when home and sometimes sector 1 of 386 when home.
So, the direction of the towers only works if both configurations are being used, and Cellcom is using a Omni-directional tower - I used those configurations because they match 368(1) and 370(1) at the yard.
And, if Teresa was not on the Mishicot tower, which is Bobby and Steve's home tower 370(1), can you clarify what tower she was on when she was pinging on 21923 and 21291? I'm confused on that part.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
It's two different providers thereby two different IDs. TH used Cingular (now known as AT&T Mobile) whereby BoD & SA used CellCom (which uses Verzon's network).
[–]seekingtruthforgood[S]
I get that, but these towers often house antennas for multiple carriers. I am trying to clarify Teresa's tower location for 2192. If not the Mishicot tower, do you know which one that is?
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
On TH's cell logs, 2192 is Mishicot and 2110 is Whitelaw (I have the GPS positions of each, but not off the top of my head thereby I'd have to get back to you. On BoD's, CellCom's appears to represents Mishicot as 3701 and Whitelaw as 3681.
There aren't a bunch of towers in that area and I doubt either SA or BoD would paying roaming charges while at home. However, I've been unable to find any records of lease arrangements between CellCom & Cingular back in 05'. That's not to say one doesn't exist, it only means I've been unable to find.
[–]seekingtruthforgood[S]
Ok. Then I think we are are agreeing on this, except if I understand you correctly, you think Mishicot is an AT&T layout for sectors? That one throws me off because the AT&T layout from Mishicot puts the Salvage yard 100% in sector 3, with 147 staying in sector 3 or 2 if she headed south from an east area on 147. That is why the earlier BellSouth/Cingular layout seemed to made more sense to me.
[–]JLWhitaker
Your comparison of the computer times and the cell tower pings in the MORNING before 7am are very interesting.
Did Bobby work Sunday night/Monday morning? Where is his job site?
If that wasn't him on the computer early Monday morning, who was it?
Then there are the around 1pm ones. Yes, Bobby was home. But remember, SA said he also saw ST's truck there around midday.
Possible it was ST on the computer [Scott did his laundry at Barb's house]?
Note the calls right next to each other at 3.56 and 3.57. Where is tower 370?
[-] magiclougie
Also possible that it was Bobby who left in Scott's green Ford Ranger around 12:30 PM, and it was Scott who left in Bobby's black Chevy Blazer just before or after Teresa left, around 2:35 PM.
[–]seekingtruthforgood[S]
Tower 370 is the same as 3701 (sector 1) in Mishicot. That is where it's located per exhibit 16.
In terms of tower sharing and roaming - these towers would have been capable of handling multiple carriers and roaming agreements. I picked up on that once I saw the map because the tower locations are virtually the same as all of the tower locations that are loaded on my Google Earth - these towers appear to service multiple carriers and have roaming agreements.
These guys are servicing the same population, so they lay out their agreements by density - everyone needs to service the same density. Here's a good article on it.
https://www.towerleases.com/cell-phone-towers-shared-carriers-towers/
BellSouth, interestingly, was part of Cingular as of 2000. So, the BellSouth and AT&T layouts make a lot of sense in this area.
Here is a source that explains the relationship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BellSouth_Mobility
Tower 2110 is not the same as 363. It is the same as 368.
Bobby was on 363 because he was west or north of the line of sector 1 for 368. It's a really fine line there.
We can see that because Steve and Bobby both are on 368 sometimes, even when they are at home, which is their normal 370 tower - 368, in my opinion, is the southwest quadrant of the Salvage Yard.
Teresa would have been in that quadrant. We can see it when following her back south on Q from Larrabee.
In my opinion, if Bobby followed her, or she followed him to, let's say, take a picture at some spot he arranged with her at 1:51 -- he followed her until just after her last call at 2:41/2:42 and then headed west, putting him in sector 1 of 363 at 3:01.
We don't know whether Teresa's phone moved into that tower because it didn't receive any calls after 2:42.
This is all just based on my opinion. I'm only absolutely right on Bobby's tower locations because it was submitted to the court as exhibit 16. But, Teresa's locations match right up once we see the towers - there are not many others in the area, no matter the carrier.
I think I only found 1 or 2 that are not on this map - so, the towers are shared by the carriers.
[–]seekingtruthforgood[S]Does anyone find Bobby's 1:51 computer access interesting when compared to Teresa Halbach's cellular call (2 line entries) at 1:51?#MakingAMurderer- BerlySays (@ BerlySays1) July 7, 2018
Teresa's phone, as I understand it, had capabilities for multiple types of towers.
Cingular capabilities included GSM plus CDMA....
[–]JLWhitaker
The Motorola Razr 3V is only GSM. No CDMA.
https://www.gsmarena.com/motorola_razr_v3-853.php
https://www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=547
The multiple bands are so it can work in other countries. Open the More Info in the Modes section of the link above.
[–]seekingtruthforgood[S]
Makes sense. I must have misunderstood.
Interesting is that 2 more AT& T/ BellSouth towers are down there and would also line up on sectors.
So her track wouldn't change if she followed Q as law enforcement indicated.
The tower that seems most important to me is that Mishicot tower that Zellner has now identified as a Cellcom tower. It would need to have GSM and CDMA because according to Google, Cellcom is CDMA.
[–]seekingtruthforgood[S]
Exhibit 16 was posted here.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/8y5wby/bobbys_cell_tower_maps_maps_here_exhibit_16/?utm_source=reddit-android
[–]magilla39
Also note that there can be multiple sets of electronics on the same physical tower.
[–]seekingtruthforgood[S]
I don't think that Mishicot tower is Teresa's anymore.
I found the prior 2006 images here in TTM. At that time, it looks like it only had one directional antenna.
If Zellner's exhibit is right, seems like it only serviced Cellcom or CDMA.
This also makes sense as to why Steven's phone switched over from 370 to 368 quite a bit. It looks like that cell tower wasn't very powerful. That strikes me as being a bit problematic for Zellner's theory on Bobby's locations though. If the Mishicot range is limited to the west/northwest, that means it would not be the likely tower for Scott's place.
The other thing I noticed, that could keep this water tower in play, is that, this tower seems to have been painted between May 2005 and that 2006 image. If that was the case, could have some of the antennas been removed during spring 2006 as it was prepped for painting? It seemed to go from blue to white in the satellite images. Not sure I guess, but I am now questioning that tower.
[–]magilla39
Zellner did do a tower survey and drive around with a Motorola phone just like Teresa's so she has a lot more data about that then we do.
Zellner had a map on her floor in a Newsweek article that gave the location of two towers. We also had photos showing that the sectors were not all set up in the standard directions.
[–]seekingtruthforgood[S]
The two towers shown in that Newsweek article exactly match the AT&T and BellSouth configurations I used in the map I posted.
https://imgur.com/a/L0meWmp
https://imgur.com/X4S5xPr
Either of those towers could work for Teresa when going to Zips because she needs to be in sector 3 as she is headed to Zips and back in sector 1 when she is heading south at 2:42 (21103/21101.)
The Dassey map establishes that Avery's place (using 368x) is within reach from those Route 10/310 towers (but his tower, 368, is not one of those in the article image).
We need to still find the tower she was pinging on when headed to Avery's (21923/21921). If not Mishicot, there is another tower missing from this mix.
Zander Road
When they saw the cut to Steven's finger on Nov 4th and where able to find blood, either in his home, on a bloody rag from the Grand Am, or from a blood vial, they switched from framing him on Zander Road to ASY.
[–]TheEntity1
I believe someone was able to make a stretched connection between the address associated to TH's old fax number and a candy business that was located at the Zander Road address. However, the name of the person living at the "fax" location was slightly different than the name affiliated with the candy business, and I'm not sure it was the correct Zander Road address either.
Other than that, I believe Zander Road is close to some of the other suspicious connections in the case -- the strange burning smell that scared the cows, the German guy, etc. But I don't know that we have found a definitive connection to Zander Road. At this point, it was either an aborted attempt at a police plant, or just an innocuous sign that had nothing to do with this case.
[-] minnesotabadger
Also where the stolen Chevy Blazer was burned in a field.
[-] magiclougie
In September 2004, one of Barb's vehicles, a Chevy Blazer, was set on fire in a field at the intersection of Stangel Road and Zander Road (images below). Steven was the primary driver of the vehicle.
Do you think they tried to frame Avery in 2004 before he filed the lawsuit and it got botched because someone called in the fire and the wrong officer responded before they had planted their evidence? Notice how JS's timeline of events doesnt match everyone else's that day. This would have been shortly after the domestic violence issue they had earlier in Sept 2004 and around the time Jodi was dealing with her OWIs from earlier that year. I may be over thinking things, it's just really odd how she seems to be dealing with legal issues around a lot of other key dates.
[–]7-pairs-of-panties
I think the 2004 thing with the Blazer was the first warning...setting it up for SA to look guilty toward the family. It was BJ's blazer. SA was the only other one who had the keys. The investigators didn't take ANY pics of the burnt Blazer and did not have any fire investigators on to the scene of this fire...sound familiar?
I think they were trying to tie the Zander Rd/Blazer burning to SA and were going to try to use that same site to tell the story of TH burning the same way so they planted the sign. Something changed along the way to make them disregard that story. (Remember they thought this was important...so important they took more pictures of the sign than they took of the bones.) It may have been the reports of the fire woosh, or SA talking with Jodi on the phone, or maybe even his own phone records or computer proving he didn't leave the property so they had to bring the crime to him. They didn't want any reasonable doubt so they tried to sure up the conviction with changing the location at the last minute.
[-] bennybaku [S]
My highly speculative theory is, the black Blazer could have been a warning. It was a month before the civil suit was filed.
[-] OpenMind4U
It's me again with references to old informative posts:)...sorry.
Here is very interesting image made by /u/abyssus_abyssum and used in discussion at HiveMind. Let's look image closer and read old post, if you may.
http://m.imgur.com/s7HklLi,Td0JKkO,dKC9OPg
Please compare above image to this handwritten note
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/exhibit-notepad.jpg
https://www.reddit.com/r/HiveMindMaM/comments/46d9w7/zellners_tweetdevils_river_zander_rd/
So, if you'll accept the notion that SA handwriting on 'For Sale' sign (address and TH phone number) is the SAME handwriting as on 'Back to Patio' note then 'For Sale' sign was made by SA;
If this sign was made by SA then he was trying to sell the car/or sold the car;
If sign template was not provided by Autotrader then possibilities are: (a) SA got this 'for sale' template himself (in Walmart or whenever else place) or (b) ASY business had these signs and probably dealing/selling cars with other car advertising agencies while SA was in jail;
Regardless where this 'For Sale' template comes from (SA bought it or ASY business have it), SA's handwriting on this sign...
...but why would he use 3302 Zander Rd??? And here are my thoughts:
SA was selling the car for someone else related to Zander Rd or...
someone asked SA to sell the car (for profit) which was located at Zander Rd or...????
Therefore, IMO, the answer is in ATM on page 114.
[–]What_a_Jem
Simple theory. Original crime scene was Zander Road. Someone wrote on the back of the sign, the address and Teresa's number as a direction. The plan had to change however, as Avery received two calls from Jodi hours apart, so couldn't have been at Zander Road that evening. No time or opportunity to get the sign back, so it was found.
Yet, no investigation, nor was it dealt with at trial. Zander Road is also where there was a foul smell reported the day after Teresa went missing.
[–]Ninjasleuth
This sign was a part of frame job #1 by party "A"
Frame job #2 was simultaneously going on by party "B"
I hope Zellner is on to both parties.
[–]Ninjasleuth
Simple solution. Somebody ask Steve where the sign came from.
Other Comments at reddit:
The address listed on Zander Road is the location near where the body of a thirty-two-year-old woman, Areerat Chuprevich from Thailand, was discovered in 2008. She had been missing since April 2003.
The Zander sign neatly tied the missing person to their main suspect (odd that they were already locked onto SA as a suspect) and provided law enforcement with their best (and likely only) lead for TH's possible whereabouts, yet they didn't send a single officer to see if she was at the Zander Road address. It simply defies logic. The only way it makes sense that they knew to not send a single investigator is that they planted the sign and knew that nothing would be found there yet.
The photo with the Zander Road sign was staged later, after November 6th, when they got JoZ's statement and found two copies of an AT magazine they could plant at Zips and at Avery's. It wasn't investigated as a lead early because the sign wasn't there!
Note that in the before picture, the blue Autotrader magazine is in front of the keyboard, with the marker on top. In the after photo, the Autotrader mag has been moved aside to the right, in front of the printer, my guess is to clear space on the desk to write her phone number on it. There are too many hesitation marks in the number for it to be his writing IMO.
Why did the blue ribbon man use this on Brendan - because only Kratz knew it was a plant because he planted it!
Those mentions in the court transcript by KK are odd. It's like they started to attempt to put something together, or deflect something the defense was going to do, but nothing came of it.
Yes, and remember they had sign at the blue ribbon meeting with BD? Seriously, this only proves they knew nothing and were trying to dig up more by using BD to make it significant.
That's what I'm getting at: he could have sold Pontiac (the sign from 10/10), and had the sign laying around, and then used it as a handy memo pad on the back.
But let's say he already had written her number on the bottom of that sheet. Then he grabs it from the desk to jot down the address so he can go look at the property later. Others say the phone number isn't there in the photos of the desk.
I think SA wrote the address and TH's phone number was added to the sign after LE commandeered ASY (I'm pointing my finger at KK, who inserted himself into the investigation).
I remember something about that, but I'm still leaning toward SA writing the Zander Road address and KK adding TH's phone number (with nobody but KK knowing he had added it to the sign -- this was before any forensic analysis of SA's computer, so only SA would have known about his Zander Road searches -- KK casually mentions the sign at trial, saying he'll return to it later but never does).
J Ferak has referenced Maribel caves park this past week. Check twitter; there is quite a bit of info being posted. The fire chief of Maribel was signed in at ASY several times . Once as the Maribel auto garage owner, another as a tow operator, and then as fire chief. SA's car was photographed in the Maribel fire department. Someone on twitter said this guy or a relative had connection to West Zander Road.
John FerakVerified account @johnferak Apr 27
2/2 Maribel Caves Park is five miles from Avery's. #MakingAMurderer
piece of woman's blue jeans - Colborn sent, Remiker joins him
Bobby Dassey's facebook page has a picture of Mike Osmunson posted during June 2005 with a baby deer he killed, so these guys definitely were poachers (image above).
The deer Bobby tagged on the morning of 11/4/2005 was poached by Bobby on 11/3/2005. It wasn't road kill.
Bobby killed the deer on 11/3 and got it tagged at a gas station on the morning of 11/4.
The road kill story was a lie made up by Barb and Bobby to explain the deer hanging in the Dassey garage after Bobby and Barb found out that Lenk and Remiker had been snooping around the Avery property on the morning of 11/4.
But Bobby couldn't stick to the script.
Bobby testified that he strung up a deer hit by a vehicle on 11/3, the day Teresa Halbach went missing.
A road kill deer was called into the police on the evening of 11/4 (if someone hits a deer they don't have to report it for a number of reasons).
Shortly after Steven and Bobby Dassey investigated lights near Chuck's place around 8 p.m. on 11/4, Barb reportedly comes home saying a deer was hit down the road. She calls the police that night so that Bobby can "claim" it (Brendan confirms this in his first interview: he says he heard it with Chuck over the radio on their way to Crivitz).
But the truth is, Bobby poached the deer on 11/3 and strung it up in Barb's garage that afternoon/evening.
November 3rd is the night that Steven went to Menard's with Chuck (just after Andy Colborn stopped by the salvage yard and asked him about missing person Teresa Halbach).
This is 100% impeaching Bobby. He is lying about the deer being road kill. Bobby poached the deer on 11/3. Barb and Bobby had to come up with an explanation for the deer strung up in his garage after (1) Colborn stopped by the salvage yard inquiring about Teresa, and (2) Lenk and Remiker snooped around the Avery property on the morning of 11/4.
On November 4, Friday, at 10:30 AM, Lenk and Remiker went to Avery Auto Salvage at the request of Mark Wiegert. They "got lost" looking for Steven Avery's trailer. They walked around Steven's and Barb's home, with nobody being home at either place.
In Zellner's August 9, 2018 reply to state, the "motion to compel," there is an exhibit for Barb's November 6, 2005 statement about Bobby claiming a road kill that she spotted on her way home on the evening of November 4th (image below).
Barb and Bobby keep adding more details to this story every time they recount it. The brain doesn’t work that way. You don’t remember “extra” details about something that happened more than a decade ago. No. You get the story straight when it first happened. Their need to keep adding “believe me” details today is a sign of desperation that they know the truth is about to surface.
You prove Bobby is lying about the deer being road kill, and you have now raised doubt about everything he has just said.
If Bobby is lying about the deer incident, then it's reasonable to assume he is lying about other things, such as watching Teresa walk toward Steven's trailer on 10/31.
Why would Teresa Halbach have been walking toward Steven Avery's trailer if she thought Barb made the request? Why not knock on the Dassey door? It was Barb's number she called that day, and Barb's name on the photo request.
Teresa saw the van, which she knew was the vehicle to be photographed. She took her pictures. And by that time Steven Avery had come out to meet her, just as he said, with money in hand to pay her. That's why she didn't knock on Barb's door.
Barb and Bobby are making up stories about how they obtained the deer and when. What advantage is there for Bobby and Barb to lie about the deer? Why didn't Bobby tell a story with her in it. Why was his story so different? Instead, it evolved to Mike telling a joke on November 10 about burying a body with Steven Avery.
All Bobby had to do was stick with Barb's script. He didn't come close. Why was he all over the place with his story?
The simple answer to this is POACHING. It addresses varying stories and dates, it even addresses why they didn't mind tossing roadkill in the back of the Blazer. Poaching can incur some really hefty fines and punishments. And, along with possible child porn...I can see why, even to today, they don't want to tell the truth.
All Bobby had to do was stick with Barb's script. He didn't come close. Why was he all over the place with his story?
The simple answer to this is POACHING. It addresses varying stories and dates, it even addresses why they didn't mind tossing roadkill in the back of the Blazer. Poaching can incur some really hefty fines and punishments. And, along with possible child porn...I can see why, even to today, they don't want to tell the truth.
Q. Now, Bobby, on the third of November, that would be a Thursday, I believe, do you recall having a conversation with your Uncle Steven regarding a body?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you tell us what your Uncle Steven told you that day?
A. Well, my buddy, Mike, was over too, and he asked us, it sounded like he was joking, honestly, he asked us if we wanted to help get rid of a body.
Q. Your Uncle Steven asked you if you wanted to help get rid of a body?
A. Yeah.
Q. What was your response?
A. "No."
Attorney Dean Strang's Motion for a Mistrial:
"Michael indicated the only time he had been at the Avery property between 10/31/05 and 11/14/05 was on Thursday, 11/10/05. He stated he and Bobby were inside the Dassey garage when Steven came over. Michael indicated he was aware Steven was one of the last people to see the missing girl, and jokingly asked Steven if Steven had her (the missing girl) in a closet. At this point Steven asked Michael if Michael wanted to 'help bury the body,' and they laughed about this together. Michael stated he had just learned about the missing girl on the Tuesday prior to that. He once again indicated he thought Steven might have been the last one to see the missing girl."
End of the relevant paragraph.
Although the following one sentence paragraph says, "According to Michael, Steven stated people go missing all the time and this girl may have left or may, quote, have left for Mexico. Period, close quote.
Now, although we have been told that Bobby is in the garage at the same time, there is no indication that Bobby overhears the statement. Moreover, there was a different context for the statement laid out here than what Bobby gave. That is, Michael himself is joking with Steven, jesting with him about having the girl in the closet. This is clearly a joking response to the jest.
We have "help bury the body," instead of "help get rid of the body." But, most significant of all, this conversation clearly takes place on Thursday, November 10, 2005, not Thursday, November 3, 2005. And Michael Osmunson says he had just learned about the missing girl on the Tuesday prior to that.
Well, that has to be on Tuesday, November 8th, because on November 1st, no one had reported Teresa Halbach missing.
I was not concerned about Michael Osmunson being a witness in this case. Why? Because Steven Avery was arrested on November 9, 2005, and he has been continuously in custody since then, and was not in the Dassey garage or Janda garage or anyone else's garage on Thursday, November 10, 2005.
Now we have a different witness, to whom this statement has never been attributed, of which we have no summary identifying him as someone who overheard the statement, or identifying a statement, as having been Bobby Dassey, as the individual identified, or critically identifying, the statement as having been made on November 3rd, as a time when Steven Avery was not in custody, was at home or in the salvage yard property, and the implication is this may have been before Teresa Halbach even is reported missing.
In large part, that implication arises because we didn't have the joke that was made to Steven Avery as the precursor of this. So, what I'm left with is this jury having heard testimony from the first blood relative of Mr. Avery to testify here, his nephew and next-door neighbor, that amounts to a confession of a crime, and under the circumstances, although, technically, because Bobby is listed in the report of contact with Michael Osmunson, technically, the discovery statute here may have been complied with.
I have not looked at the case law under the discovery statutes, but, setting that aside, this comes as an unfair surprise. It's materially different than the summary or the statement of which we have been given notice.
There is no way to unwind this from the juror's minds. It has enormous unfair prejudicial impact. I can think of no remedy, short of asking for a mistrial, on the introduction of this testimony by the State on the direct examination of Bobby Dassey, without having been invited by the defense, or the defense otherwise having opened the door, or done anything to which you could say this would be an invited response. I move, therefore, for a mistrial on the grounds I have explained.
Cross Examination of Bobby Dassey by Dean Strang:
Q. Now, yesterday, Mr. Kratz asked you about a conversation that happened in your garage, with a -- your friend Mike was there?
A. Yes.
Q. Is Mike, Mike Osmunson?
A. Yes.
Q. Or Michael Osmunson, but you call him Mike?
A. Yes.
Q. How do you know you were in the garage, your garage, when this conversation happened?
A. Because we just arrived home and we entered the garage.
Q. What was going on in the garage?
A. We bought some climbing sticks that night for hunting and we were putting them together.
Q. Climbing sticks are little sticky pads you put on the rungs to climb up a deer stand?
A. Yes.
Q. So your boots don't slip and you fall off and break your neck?
A. Yes.
Q. You were doing that with Mike in the garage.
A. Yes.
Q. Roughly what time, do you remember, you guys were doing this?
A. Probably 6:30, 7:00.
Q. Somewhere in that range?
A. Yes.
Q. And was there a deer?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. What was -- This was a deer that was hanging at that point?
A. Yes.
Q. In the garage. Was the deer skun out?
A. No, not at that time.
Q. The time of this conversation had not been skinned yet?
A. Yes.
Q. Or had been?
A. It hadn't.
Q. When did you get this deer?
A. That night.
Q. And how long or how did you get the deer?
A. It was a road kill. It was hit right up the road from our house.
What Does it Mean When Bobby's Deer Head was in the Garage, not Dismembered on the Side of the Garage?
By seekingtruthforgood, TickTockManitowoc)
April 25, 2019
At issue is the condition of the dead deer in Barb's garage when photographed by law enforcement versus the condition as described by Bobby during his recorded interview with Dedering and Special Agent Heimerl on November 9.
First, here's the photograph of the deer taken by law enforcement: https://imgur.com/Z1suvBs.
This photo is trial exhibit 123. From the photo, one can see the deer is laying on the garage floor. The tag is dated November 4.
These are important details because John Ferak, per his footnote (12) in Wrecking Crew, cited audio excerpts from Bobby's interview (this audio, btw, was requested via a FOIA request, but the request was denied due to the current disposition of the case.) However, a limited written summary of this interview can be found in CASO, page 195.
Excluded from CASO, but included within the audio version, Ferak wrote that Bobby stated the head of the deer was located on the side of the garage. This is incredibly odd because, as demonstrated by law enforcement's photo, the head of the deer was still fully intact with the body.
Timeline wise, this discrepancy raises questions:
- Did law enforcement take the photo of the deer on November 4th but never write a report?
- Was Bobby at his house processing the deer on the 5th, after law enforcement took the photo (again, no report)?
- Was Bobby allowed back on scene to process the deer on another date after the photo was taken but before his interview on the 9th?
- Or, alternatively, was the head of the deer located on the side of the garage related to yet a different deer? Really? So, who got that deer?
- Where is the follow up documentation with the butcher related to what may have been another deer?
- Being Bobby was potentially in possession of a 2nd deer, why wasn't the presence of burned animal bones, along with human bones, incredibly troubling for law enforcement?
- So, before blood work was completed, law enforcement was processing a scene which included mixed human and animal bones in Dassey's burn barrel and blood, never tested, all over Dassey's garage.
Here is an except from Wrecking Crew (Kindle, Location 256):
"One would think that an astute detective investigating a young woman’s apparent murder would have a natural curiosity about such a coincidence. “How long had you been hanging the deer, Bobby?” Dedering asked. (12)
“Since Friday night,” Bobby answered, referring to November 4.
“Who hit the deer, you know?”
“No.” Bobby suggested he found the deer “right up the road.”
“OK again, who claimed the deer?”
“I did. I trussed and hung it up that Saturday.”
“Who skinned it?”
“I did.”
After asking what Bobby did with the deer skin, Dedering, the bumbling detective from Calumet County, blurted out, “shows how much I’ve been in your garage, doesn’t it?”
At that moment, Dedering’s interview partner, Wisconsin DCI Special Agent Kevin Heimerl, made an observation.
“It sounds to me like you’ve skinned and butchered your own deer before?”
“Yeah,” Bobby agreed.
“What would you normally do with the hide then?”
“We took them into town.”
“Oh, OK.”
Then Dedering wondered if the local butcher shop accepted deer heads.
“No. We just burn them,” Bobby answered. “Over in the burning barrel.”
At that point, Dedering admitted he wasn’t familiar with Bobby’s yard even though it was just a short walking distance from Steven Avery’s trailer.
“In the burning barrels?” Dedering wondered.
“Uh-huh,” Bobby agreed.
The conversation shifted back to Avery’s skills as a hunter and rugged outdoorsman.
“He doesn’t hunt that much,” Bobby replied.
When Heimerl asked whether the deer’s head still existed, Bobby responded by saying that the head was still right side of his mother’s garage.
“So which burn barrel do you guys normally burn the heads up?” Dedering asked.
“Uh, ours. This is the first one that we actually got our family … the other one we took in to the butcher.”
“Describe to me again, Bobby, where you hunt?” Dedering inquired. “How far is that from your house?”
His hunting spot was about two-and-a-half miles from home, he responded.
Dedering wondered whether Bobby knew the land owner in northern Manitowoc County.
“I don’t know.” “But you know, what’s his name, Scott Tadych?”
“Tadych,” Bobby answered.
Bobby was asked if he and Tadych, the soon-to-be husband of Bobby’s mother, hunted together.
“No. That’s the first day actually that I hunted.”"
Footnote: 12. Bobby Dassey Nov. 9, 2005 interview with John Dedering and Kevin Heimerl.
By magilla39, TickTockManitowoc
July 14, 2018
(1) CASO page 252: "OSMUNSON (MICHAEL's mom) states her son, MICHAEL, and BOBBY DASSEY, go goose and deer hunting together and she stated this is usually behind the OSMUNSON property."
(2) CASO page 259: MICHAEL O. on 11/14/2005 says he saw Steven on 11/10/2005, when he was in custody. MICHAEL tells the "burying the body joke" story to LE. MICHAEL says Bobby saw a big fire on 11/01 or 11/02. MICHAEL O. seems to be steering LE toward Steven.
(3) CASO page 516: Interview of BRYAN DASSEY on 02/27/06. BOBBY repeating the Steven joke to BRYAN. "I asked BRYAN if he could remember anything strange that had stuck out in his mind during that time or after Halloween. He said the incident when BOBBY had hung the deer in his mom's garage. BRYAN said he did not hear it directly from STEVEN, however, BOBBY had told him a couple of months ago when BOBBY and his friend, MICHAEL OSMUNSON, were hanging the deer, STEVEN made the comment that he needed help getting rid of a body."
(4) Brendan Dassey Interview by Baldwin, 11/05/2005: BRENDAN tells Detective Baldwin that Bobby always goes goose hunting with Mike O. at 3:00 pm, and that's where he was on 10/31/2005.
Detective Baldwin: W-who was home at your house on Monday?
BRENDAN: Just Bobby.
Detective Baldwin: Just Bobby was home? And what, how long was he home?
BRENDAN: 'till ah 3:00.
Detective Baldwin: 3:00.
BRENDAN: Then he went huntin'
Detective Baldwin: Bow huntin', or
BRENDAN: Goose hunting.
Detective Baldwin: Goose hunting.
BRENDAN: With his friend.
Detective Baldwin: With his friend. What's his friends name?
BRENDAN: Mike Osmunson.
[...]
Detective Baldwin: So when he wakes up, he gets up to go goose huntin' at 3:00?
BRENDAN: Yeah.
Detective Baldwin: He sa, he told you he went at 3:00 or did you see him go, oh no you were at school yet. He told you he went at three?
BRENDAN: He always does that everyday.
Detective Baldwin: Every day he goes at 3:00 o'clock goose huntin'?
BRENDAN: Yeah.
On July 6, 2018, Kathleen Zellner filed a "Motion to Supplement Previously-filed Motion for Post-conviction Relief."
In it Zellner states:
Mr. Avery is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on whether the withheld CD constitutes a Brady violation that entitles him to a new trial... Mr. Avery has presented this court with sufficient allegations of a Brady violation that meet the Kyles standard that the absence of the CD evidence deprived Mr. Avery of a fair trial, meaning a trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence... Confidence in Mr. Avery's verdict is undermined because of the suppression of material evidence contained on the CD, which could have been used to impeach Bobby's trial testimony as the State's primary witness and also to have established him as a third-party Denny suspect, because the CD would have supported a sexual assault motive for the murder of Ms. Halbach.Included as an exhibit in the July 6, 2018 motion is a June 25, 2018 affidavit from Blaine Dassey. He asserts that under pressure from "authorities" for the State of Wisconsin he lied at Avery's trial.
Blaine also states that he saw his brother Bobby heading eastbound on highway 147 in a greenish or bluish vehicle on October 31, 2005 (Blaine was on his way home, heading westbound in a school bus on highway 147, around 3:30-3:40 PM, when he passed Bobby going in the opposite direction).
Blaine clarified on youtube.com that Bobby was driving a Ford Ranger when he saw him heading eastbound on highway 147 around 3:30-3:40 PM on October 31, 2005 (a screenshot was pasted to facebook: see image above).
At the time of Teresa Halbach's disappearance on October 31, 2005, Scott Tadych drove a green Ford Ranger with a cap, similar to the one in the photo below (toward the end of Making A Murderer episode 9, just after Barb's meltdown outside the courthouse, you can see Scott walking to his truck, without the cap, which is parked by some SUVs).
Bobby purchased a blue Ford Ranger in 2006 or later.
https://imgur.com/a/hIvsWnT
Also included as an exhibit in the July 6, 2018 motion is a new affidavit from Steven Avery, and in it he states that he believes both Bobby and Scott are involved in the murder of Teresa Halbach.
In November 2017, Zellner told Rolling Stone magazine:
I ask myself what would motivate Tadych and Bobby to be such obstructionists and I have reached the inevitable conclusion, as our court filings state, that they were involved in the crime and Barb, was and is involved, even unwittingly, in its coverup. … Tadych thinks he can intimidate us into looking away, but he has only succeeded in placing himself front and center in our investigation. Quite frankly, he is no match for our abilities, experience, resources or boundless commitment to freeing Steven Avery.
Bobby Dassey ties his deer incident and hanging at trial to Mike O, November 3rd, and skinning a deer in the garage.— NotAC (@Rookie1082) August 9, 2018
Hey Bobby, how are you skinning a deer from "up the road" on the 3rd if it was hit on the 4th? #MakingAMurderer pic.twitter.com/phJZFL6RlL
Related:
- In her new motion Zellner (via her expert, exhibit 9) suggests the State acted negligently in its failure to charge Bobby Dassey with a violation of Wis. Stats. 948.12 on child pornography despite being in possession of material evidence which demonstrated the Statute had been violated
- Zellner’s new motion: Dassey computer was in the Dassey residence from Nov 5 - 12, 2005 while law enforcement had control of property. Zellner says computer records are missing from that same time period. Did the State later delete records of computer activity from a time when only LE had access?
- Newly revealed Instant Messages from the Dassey Computer demonstrate that while speaking to young girls Bobby Dassey would make some rather disturbing comments, such as, “We’re going to play a game, and we’re going to play it by my rules. Meet me at a warehouse. I’ll be that guy from Saw."
- In Nov 2005 Avery’s computer was seized. Nothing was found. In April 2006 the Dassey computer was seized. Child porn and torture porn was found. Nothing was done. Then in Oct 2006 Wiegert seized Avery’s camera saying the device might contain photos of Teresa Halbach being subjected to sexual sadism
- Reviewing Zellner’s acquisition and examination of the Dassey computer hard drive forensic image
- Folders on Dassey computer contained photos of SA and TH, a Halbach folder and a DNA folder
- The significance of the withheld CD versus the 7 DVDs
[–]Mr_Precedent
ReplyDeleteI think it would be very interesting (and it wouldn't surprise me) IF:
There was never anything sordid on the computer, but Ken Kratz claimed there was, so to blackmail the Dassey boys and Barb into changing their testimony against SA to fit Kratz's narrative. Velie found nothing and said so in his report, but Kratz altered it without Velie's knowledge, and convinced Strang and Buting that there was nothing useful on the computer so to keep Velie from being called to testify (and so he'd never know his report was altered). Kratz got Fassbender to hide the CD so IF any of this ever came out, he could say HE was honest (it's true there's nothing of value on the computer), and point the finger at Fassbender for withholding the CD.
Barb hired someone to wipe the computer (of nothing) and kept it around just in case Kratz or MTSO ever tried to use it against them. WHY ELSE DO YOU HOLD ONTO AN OLD COMPUTER THAT POTENTIALLY CONTAINS STUFF THAT COULD PUT YOUR KID IN PRISON?!?
When KZ became aware of the missing CD, Barb gave the computer to her. Scott was angry because the whole thing was going to make his pal Bobby look like a killer and a pedophile, and also reveal that they lied in court. KZ's expert made a copy of the computer. Then KZ cast her bait. The State got the computer and kept it for months while trying to decide whether to leave it as is or add some stuff to it - and to keep it away from KZ. KZ requested a subpoena as if Barb wa being uncooperative so to get the State and judge's reactions. Barb officially acquiesced and KZ's expert is now comparing LE's 2006 copy with KZ's 2017 copy and KZ's 2018 copy.
Next, KZ reveals Kratz's blackmailing scheme. SA will be exonerated. Kratz and his conspirators will go to prison. BD will be released and go to a wrestling match. KZ will collect more than $36 million for SA and the taxpayers of Wisconsin will demand that DAs and LEOs be held to a higher standard in the future.
KZ has a copy of the discs and the computer now. But back when Kratz thought nobody outside of Manitowoc would ever see the "evidence," he discouraged DS & JB from looking at the computer data and hid the alleged results. I think it's possible he did that because there was nothing bad on the computer and he was making it all up so to blackmail Barb and the D boys into cooperating. Whether the fabrication is on the computer, the alleged copy of the drives, the original report, or a doctored report, I don't know. But I suspect it's fake and KZ's end goal is to show that Kratz manufactured more than just the phone records. I can understand why Barb and Scott would be angry about KZ bringing it all up when it isn't safe for them to spill the rest of the beans (yet).
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/97z1wc/what_are_your_thoughtspredictions_on_the_results/
[–]Mr_Precedent
ReplyDeleteI think Barb and the Dassey brothers were pressured/blackmailed (at Fox Hills) into changing their stories to fit the State's false narrative and making up stuff to make SA seem guilty. I also think ST was tricked by the faked Sikikey letter and burn barrel contents into thinking SA was guilty and trying to frame HIM. Everything in the phone call backs up this scenario.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/98nk18/112017_call_sa_and_bt_approximately_1336_mark/
KZ never said Bobby drove RAV4!!!! Point is that Bobby did not drove his Blazer but someone else's green/blue truck.
ReplyDeleteKZ is after Brady Violations, Perjury, Prosecutorial Misconducts...everything which could raise the points of unlawful, unconstutional, unfair trial for her client which requires new Trial (at the minimum!).
In the big scheme of things, it doesn't really matter whose vehicle Bobby was seen driving. Just the fact that he was seen driving a vehicle that wasn't his calls into question his truthfulness about what he did that day and he and ST's mutual alibi.
Bobby was driving a different car than he testified to and he was on the road at a time he should have been hunting.
The owner of the truck Bobby was driving knows what's going on.
I don't think Blaine has probably been able to say much until now. Following the closure of Brendan's SCOTUS case, he probably let more out.
[–]WVBotanist
I have no idea where the OP is from, or the accuracy/validity of the Blaine account. But lets assume, for a second, that it is accurate, valid, recent (as in, more recent than last Friday), and he is telling the truth.
If KZ was aware of that, it is unlikely anyone would ever know, for sure. I'd like to opine that she is above a similar tactic, but I have no idea. I'm pretty certain that I would NOT be above it, if I was convinced of SAs innocence. In contrast, having no idea if he is innocent or not, but being certain that his trial was unfair, I do believe I am above using a similar tactic to simply draw other unfair actions into the light.
But guess, what? Those sorts of questions will never see the light of day, unless an evidentiary hearing (or better) is granted. The affidavit will not be challenged for content and accuracy by the court itself, so only the State could raise the question that the OP's screenshot implies. But if they raise something like that in the interim, then it would imply that they see the need for an evidentiary hearing, sort of.
[–]Grassroots112
Blaine didn’t specify which vehicle make or type BoD was seen driving and while he might have told KZ it was a Ford Ranger, she doesn’t have to specify either. Not when she is working through a number of theories and trying to get to the bottom of this. IMO and I could be wrong, she is wanting someone somewhere to come out and say it wasn’t a RAV, it was a... and if not, then it could be the RAV. It’s a dangerous game to play, playing with words and ideas, but how else is she able to draw information from people unwilling to talk? It’s kind of like she has set a trap.
She has provided a very very strong theory that BoD is heavily involved in this and her motion is begging him or anyone close to him to come forward and give her a damn good reason to change tact and if not, this is how it is. As SA did they will go wherever the leads take them and right now a lot leads to BoD.
If he wasn’t involved or if he didn’t kill TH, now is the time for him to talk and anyone else who knows more to do likewise otherwise the pointing of fingers will remain and suspicion even more.
Again he doesn’t have to say it is this or that make and model and neither does KZ, she is trying to meet Denny. If it goes to a retrial, the make and model will be established it needs to be for the sake of BoD and even then, if it was ST’s vehicle, that in itself raises suspicion and poses other questions.
[–]Guido_Incognito
ReplyDeleteA green Ford Ranger.
There was a report called into MTSO dispatch about two turkey hunters at the Richard Drum Forest who saw a dark/green truck and a guy in waders in the trails below the bridge on Thursday Nov. 3rd.
This hunter felt it was important enough to call the Sheriff about what he saw, the call was forwarded to Calumet.
[–]jakse1
I think it would have been to SA's benefit if Blaine did say he saw Bobby driving a green ford ranger which is what ST was driving back then because it blows apart Bobby saying he was hunting at 3:45 and blows apart ST's alibi and the fact that they alibied each other (each driving their vehicles and passing each other much earlier) and really suspicious considering neither told police anything about swapping cars. I also think that would have made blaine's new info more credible than trying to give the impression he saw Bobby in the rav because obviously that would have been something pretty hard for blaine to overlook and not mention but if it's st's truck, it makes more sense that blaine would not have thought much about it. It also hurts credibility when it seems the affidavit was intentionally trying to give the impression it was teresa's car when blaine obviously believes it was a ford ranger.
I'm pretty sure barb posted on fb, in response to Bobby driving the rav, that Bobby also had a green ford ranger.
Maybe Bobby ditched the rav and tossed the keys in the river and then realized he needed to move the rav so the guy in the water with the green truck could have been one of them searching for keys which were never found. They couldn't move the rav at that point so it's seen by a couple people and reported to AC where he finds it and calls in plates. Then they go to work getting rh involved to get the spare key and help get the rav into salvage yard (the night rh has the twenty or so calls between him and le). RH when ditching rav, grabs her papers.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/8xbqee/weird_post_on_facebook_has_me_boggled_picture/e2371u6/?context=1
[–]jakse1
Maybe Bobby ditched the rav and tossed the keys in the river and then realized he needed to move the rav so the guy in the water with the green truck could have been one of them searching for keys which were never found. They couldn't move the rav at that point so it's seen by a couple people and reported to AC where he finds it and calls in plates. Then they go to work getting rh involved to get the spare key and help get the rav into salvage yard (the night rh has the twenty or so calls between him and le). RH when ditching rav, grabs her papers.
[–]Eric_eats_a_Banana
There is other stuff to back up speculation about Bobby, the internet stuff is more interesting to me with the timing of the deleted searches being about Teresa and his comments to SA about Teresa, then there is all the rest of his internet "interests". Add to that the cell pings and being late for work I feel that is more than enough to warrant discussio
[–]MMonroe54
Yes, I meant only the driving of a bluish green vehicle which has resulted in an explosion of speculation that it was TH's car.
The internet searches and the cell tower pings (if valid) still exist, I agree.
The "late to work" business is in only one report that I've seen, written by Dedering. He writes it in his report about the warrant to take Bobby's finger and palm prints and a DNA swab on 11/9/05 at a hospital. Dedering writes: "He stated he does not even hear the telephone when it rings. DASSEY indicated he stayed home until 2330 hours on 10/31/05 and then left for work at [redacted]." Since I doubt seriously that Bobby used military time, Dedering probably converted what Bobby said and could have just written it wrong. Everywhere else that I've seen, Bobby said he got up about 9:30 and left for work.
[–]MMonroe54
ReplyDeleteI agree that a deeper investigation should have been done in that he was the other person on the property and in the vicinity the day TH arrived, and that he admitted seeing her through a window. This investigation was heavily flawed, imo.
I also think there was no excuse for not informing the defense about the content of the computer's hard drive, in referring to it as "Brendan's computer," and in not turning over the CD. Whether it had any bearing or not, they were entitled to accurate and full information.
[–]skippymofo
If BoD drove ST green ford ranger and SA saw the car about 12.10 pm directly behind BoD Blazer and ST car left 15 minutes later ...what does this mean exactly?
[–]JLWhitaker
The point is this: where was his BLACK blazer? Blaine says specifically - Bobby was NOT driving his black blazer. Remember, it was gone when SA went outside because Bobby was going bow hunting before he went to work. Bobby has said he did this every day with MO.
It's not what she included. It's what HE included in his affidavit. He says specifically that Bobby was NOT driving his black blazer, so where was it?
Blaine also says Bobby wasn't home at any time he was that evening before he went trick-or-treating, but the time isn't given in this June 2018 affidavit.
See evidence item 19 in the motion.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/8xbqee/weird_post_on_facebook_has_me_boggled_picture/
[–]MMonroe54
ReplyDelete"believe" is not a word I see on this sub. "Convinced" is, however.
Have never seen the narrative you claim. Saying she was shot in the head -- due to Eisenberg's questionable testimony -- is hardly a narrative with detailed time delineation.
I don't have a scenario. I can surmise some things, but it's all speculation with no way to know, which is why I don't. I think it's reasonable to say I don't know what happened, and not knowing, entertain doubt. The people in charge of this investigation created most of the doubt, by the way. They lied or misrepresented things. And they handled almost everything in evidence badly: the key find, the bones/burn pit, the RAV. And began it all with a lie: that MCSO would not be involved. That creates, whether you admit it or not, a loss of faith in those who should have been investigating this case and the disappearance of TH.
Kratz was a manipulative DA, who apparently didn't trust his own case or the evidence produced, so, for insurance, decided to taint the jury pool.
Here's a little excerpt from MAM, which shows how Kratz behaved, even when cornered by the media:
Kratz appears before the press with the quip "I'm always ready!" Reporters immediately go to Bobby Dassey's testimony about the "bury the body" remark. Kratz starts to say that Bobby established that it was November 3, but a reporter corrects him and says "No, you are the one who mentioned November 3 when it really took place on November 10 and was said by Mike Osmundsen." Kratz' presidential press conference demeanor kind of collapses. He says, "Bobby Dassey identified the information as occurring on November 3." Another reporter says "No, you identified it as November 3. You said 'On November 3, I believe it was a Thursday, do you recall a conversation with Steven Avery about a body.' Did that come from a report we don't know about?" [The reporters know that it was Mike Osmundsen who actually told the detectives about Steven's comment, not Bobby Dassey, and are trying to find out why Kratz asked Bobby about it as if he was the one who heard it.]
Kratz: "It came from preparation of Bobby Dassey. I always interview my witnesses before they testify."
Reporter: Were the police reports from Mike's statements to police or did Bobby Dassey actually tell you, 'cause it kinda sounds in court that Bobby Dassey never mentioned his conversation or those jokes with investigators, that it was only Mike that mentioned them?
Kratz does not answer the question. Instead he deflects by saying "I understand you are all very excited about this but don't forget the real reason Bobby testified today. Establishing the timeline and establishing that Teresa Halbach walked toward Mr. Avery's house before she was murdered."
[Kratz is fairly adept at using the media to get his message out. He is totally aware that everyone in Manitowoc and adjoining counties -- probably all of Wisconsin -- are watching the trial and these interviews with the press.]
Reporter: Why didn't you put Mike on the witness list and call him so you could have avoided this issue?
Kratz: I don't think it was an issue. I get to call my witnesses that I think are going to prove the state's case. Bobby Dassey was not a central figure in this trial.....
End of excerpt.
And he lied at trial, in his opening and closing statements. If he had as straight forward a case as he now says, why do all that? For many that kind of behavior creates doubt, even before he is revealed as a man who violated his own oath of office.
The case has holes. It doesn't matter that you don't see them or are unwilling to. They exist.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/9ms9uq/guilters_talk_me_through_the_narrative_of_what/
Bobby's testimony, both on Direct and on Cross, is that he got the deer Thursday night, which was Nov. 3. Here it is on Cross by Strang: (sorry this is so long but the actual testimony is important, I think).
ReplyDeleteA. We bought some climbing sticks that night for hunting and we were putting them together.
Q. Climbing sticks are little sticky pads you put on the rungs to climb up a deer stand?
A. Yes.
Q. So your boots don't slip and you fall off and break your neck?
A. Yes.
Q. You were doing that with Mike in the garage.
A. Yes.
Q. Roughly what time, do you remember, you guys were doing this?
A. Probably 6:30, 7:00.
Q. Somewhere in that range?
A. Yes.
Q. And was there a deer?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. What was -- This was a deer that was hanging at that point?
A. Yes.
Q. In the garage. Was the deer skun out?
A. No, not at that time.
Q. The time of this conversation had not been skinned yet?
A. Yes.
Q. Or had been?
A. It hadn't.
Q. When did you get this deer?
A. That night.
Q. And how long or how did you get the deer?
A. It was a road kill. It was hit right up the road from our house.
Q. Now, when you get a road kill, you can't just take that home and eat it necessarily, can you.
A. No.
Q. You have got to get a tag in this state?
A. Yes.
Q. From the DNR?
A. Yes.
Q. You had not hit the deer?
A. No.
Q. But you saw it hit? **
A. Yes.
Q. And knew it was a fresh kill?
A. Yes.
Q. So you put it in your truck?
A. Yes.
Q. Brought it home?
A. Yes.
Q. And it was too late at that point to get the tag?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you hang it up that first night?
A. Yes.
Q. Who called to get the tag?
A. My mom did.
Q. And do you remember whether she called to get the tag, called about the tag, the night you first found the deer or the next day?
A. The night that we found the deer.
Q. But you didn't get the tag until the next morning?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. I'm going to show you Exhibit 123. Can you make out what that is?
A. That's a tag.
Q. A tag for the deer that was hanging in your garage --
A. Yes.
Q. -- when you had this conversation with Mike?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. While you are putting the climbing sticks on?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. **Now, the tag is dated November 4 or 11/4/05, isn't it? A. Yes.
Bobby goes on to describe, under Cross, that you hang deer to help them cure, that he took the deer down the next morning, which would be Friday, and took it to get the tag. And further he says that he did it because his mother had to go to work Friday morning, and, essentially, his, Bobby's, work week was over.
DeleteHere's that testimony:
Q. Okay. But you didn't skin it the first night you had it?
A. No.
Q. Because you had to get it tagged?
A. Yes.
Q. So you took it down the morning of the 4th of November?
A. Yes.
Q. Went and got it tagged yourself?
A. Yes.
Q. And I want to be clear about that, even though your mom had called about the tag, you actually took the deer to get it tagged?
A. Yes.
Q. Because she was off to work on a Friday morning?
A. Yes.
Q. November 4 was Friday?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you bring the deer back and you have the deer tagged, I assume, right?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do with the deer at that point?
A. I hung it up again and scun it out.
Q.Okay. And was it that night that you hung it up again and scun it out, that you had this conversation with Mike?
A. No, it was the night before.
Q. The night before?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. You remember talking to us last night?
A. Yes.
Q. And telling us that it was the second time you hung the deer, and the deer was scun out, when you were doing the climbing sticks?
A. Yes.
Q. The -- You remember that the conversation with Mike happened after the news of Teresa Halbach's disappearance had been on TV?
A. Yes.
Q. That you are certain of?
A. Yes, it was that day.
Q. After it was on TV?
A. Yes.
Strang goes on to ask Bobby about going to work on Thursday night and then they talk about the photograph of the deer in the garage and Strang re-emphasizes the day the tag is dated and when Bobby said SA came over and the joke conversation occurred. And he then moves to Nov 5, the Saturday on which Bobby went goose hunting and came home to find the roadblock preventing him from getting to his house and retrieving his puppy.
Clearly, at trial Bobby says he saw the deer get hit, picked it up, brought it home on Thursday night, Nov 3, that he hung it that night, took it down the next day, Friday, Nov 4 and got it tagged. If that's not true, he perjured himself in court.
This convoluted story of the deer has never made sense. Why tell it if it weren't true? It seemingly has to do with the implication that SA -- as the prosecution maintained -- had the "hide the body" conversation on Thursday night, Nov 3, after he would have spoken with Colborn.
https://old.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/bh49cu/what_does_it_mean_when_bobbys_deer_head_was_in/
DNASweat_SMH
ReplyDelete16 points
·
9 months ago
Can't say I was not expecting this. Here is what I find interesting:
On the 1st bullet point they took a computer from the Dassey residence that belonged to BJ, the mother of BD. Right off the bat; they are still shying away from it belonging to BoD computer and claiming it was just a computer in the Dassey house. By adding BD name , they are trying to bring BD and the computer together. Crappy. Should had read: We obtained the computer from BJ residence that was found in BoD bedroom. Hence the picture we already have depicting such.
3-6. Computer analyzed for 16 days. Yet you only gave the defense 10 days ( i think ) right before trial and said they needed special software. That alone is crappy , unethical , and morally wrong.
7. Fassbender report? I do not recall this. If he wrote said report then I am sure SA previous attorney's would had jumped on this as it would help with motive for Denny. Does anyone know of this report being given to the defense? I am thinking not.
8. This is just laughable. I gave you the DVD because this is the information I found but on another device, CD, I decided to write on how the DVD's were created......shut the front door. If all the information on the CD was the same as the DVD then why even create the CD? Because the DVD's were a jumbled mess and the CD was created with a final report to state what was on it. Not fooling anyone here. Much less your peers there Captain V.
15. "nothing of evidentiary value" - Child porn, violent porn, talking to miners.... My question: if this was found on the computer, then they returned the computer with the same information that is found on the DVD's, then by definition didn't LE distribute child porn? Also, we all have spoken about this, but what was found is clearly what KK told the jury happened to TH by SA. So if he says she died the way she did, and that information was found on the Dassey computer, BoD was the last to see TH alive, and the burn barrels then that sounds like Denny to me.
Argument: 3. the evidence was material to the issue at trial.
If this information was:
a. Provided to the defense ..... we would not be talking about it now
b. Labeled the computer as belonging to BoD.......we would not be talking about it now
c. Pictures of BoD back ..................we would not be here now
----> why was so much attention by LE to BoD in the first place yet he was not a prime suspect?
d. Given to the defense in a timely manner............. we would not be talking about it now
The Prosecution Did Not Suppress Evidence
Clearly they did. Just because the information on the DVD's were the same as the CD ( not ) that does not disclose the fact that the CD report clearly shows motive for the person who owns the computer.
It's laughable when the State says that the defense didn't ask for the CD. In a discovery the State has to turn over everything. They did not. Even when the current counsel asked for it they only gave it on the 3rd request. So yeah, they continued to suppress this CD. Why? It is not favorable to the case against SA and implements the primary user of the computer.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/9363d6/states_response_to_zellners_motion_to_supplement/
Why was Strang so hot to plea for a Mistrial over the Osmunson/Dassey statements, but directed Steve not to take the Mistrial of Juror number 11 highly dubious withdrawal during deliberations? That doesn't make sense.
ReplyDeletehttps://redd.it/a0n7a8
[–]JJacks61
It is apparent to me that Mike Osmunson lied fantastically.
The question is why?
What spooked him?
That is the real question. I so wished Strang and Buting had subpoenaed Mike O to testify. Really put the screws to him.
[–]SBRH33[S]
That is the real question. I so wished Strang and Buting had subpoenaed Mike O to testify. Really put the screws to him.
I have to look back on Kratz's STIP list, but was Mike Osmunsen on that STIP list?
If not it looks like another case of the defense blowing yet another red light.
If you read Strangs cross of Bobby Dassey it is completely confusing to read. Strang jumps back and forth from one topic to the next, in and out of timelines without really getting much of value out of Bobby Dassey.
Strang does this a lot with the witnesses. His cross is difficult and quite confusing to read.
Now imagine if you were a Juror listening to that?
Now imagine not being allowed to have access to any transcript like the Jury wanted in Bobby's case and were told to "rely on your memory" ...as Willis instructed the Jury they'd have to do.
Wow.
Now examine Ken Kratz's direct.
Notice how he basically drawls only yes or no answers from his witnesses. Notice how his questions are direct, simple and flow forward and dont jump from one timeframe to the next.
Its almost like Strang was purposefully muddying the waters himself.
Pretty incredible. I wonder why that is?
https://old.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/a0n7a8/mexico/
[–]JJacks61
DeleteKratz Stipulation Project Bullshit begins HERE, page 83.
I have to look back on Kratz's STIP list, but was Mike Osmunsen on that STIP list?
Quick scan through, I didn't see his name. It's also no surprise, virtually everything listed benefits the state. Letter H is also interesting. I thought PoGs called Pagel's direct cell, not 911?
Strang is kind of a puzzle to me. He's obviously a sharp lawyer, often times quick on his feet, as we saw several times in MaM S1. Yet, he missed several key things throughout the process. Did he get blinders on, early, when he a Buting took the case?
I believe Kratz over coached many of his witnesses. Bobby, Ryan, Scott T, PoGs (good grief), Eisenberg, just to name a few.
It is interesting to read Strang's cross on many witnesses. I'm not sure why he backed away. Buting didn't on several witnesses.
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Motion-to-Supplement-Previously-Filed-Motion-for-Post-Conviction-Relief.pdf#page=83
A locals perspective to the recent mayhem of the tragic misfortunes caused by Manitowoc Co. (self.MakingaMurderer)
ReplyDeletesubmitted 3 years ago * by 136081
I have friends who live in surrounding counties and whose families were targeted by their sheriff departments. Long family feuds that range from poaching and trespassing to grand larceny. It's been the way of things since anyone can remember. What side the sheriff department is on usually wins, regardless of fairness. I believe that when the truth does come out, the Avery case will only be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the decades of corruption and collusion that's been the normal for all since I can remember.
Deer Hunting privileges is / always will be a topic of contention in that area. If a family is known for poaching, they will gain the ire of responsible sportsmen. Some of these big families join the Posse Comitatus. In the case of the Averys, there was a history of violence out there, and it may not have been somebody's first salvage yard of choice.
Good families, with the right last name and money, can pretty much get away with murder, but if you have the misfortune to be born into one of the "bad" families here (quite similar to the way the Averys are viewed) you will be targeted by the police, the school system, and people of the population. The schools will label you a troublemaker because your brother or cousin was one, parents won't let kids play with you because your family is trash, and the police will pull you over every chance they get because if you are an "Avery" surely you have drugs or something illegal on you. God help you if you cross a cop/cop's wife/sister/mother/cousin because they will harass you to no end.
I grew up in Sheboygan. Trust me, the petty arguments of family can be as big of a reason to stab someone in the back as spit in their face in that part of the world. Money, and money not shared, is all to often the cause of those feuds. There was zero reason for the police to use the Tadych burn barrel to move the cremains. There must have been some reason for Bobby and Scotty to be witnesses for the prosecution.
The earliest of the settling families rule! If your on that side, the right side, LE looks the other way!
https://old.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/43gv5p/a_locals_perspective_to_the_recent_mayhem_of_the/
[–]MMonroe54
ReplyDeleteOr Thursday, Nov 3, if Bobby didn't lie about getting the deer that night, hanging it, and taking it down the next morning to go get the tag. Bobby apparently told Buting and Strang two different things.
Here is Bobby's testimony on Cross by Strang. Strang asked about Friday, Nov 4, the day Bobby got the deer tagged and skinned it: Q. Now, you bring the deer back ]Edit: note back meaning the deer had been in the garage previously] and you have the deer tagged, I assume, right?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do with the deer at that point?
A. I hung it up again and scun it out. [Edit: He had already hung it up once, the night before, according to him, before taking it down Friday morning to take it to get the tag.] Q. Okay. And was it that night that you hung it up again and scun it out, that you had this conversation with Mike?
A. No, it was the night before.
Q. The night before? A. Yes. Q. Okay. You remember talking to us last night? A. Yes. Q. And telling us that it was the second time you hung the deer, and the deer was scun out, when you were doing the climbing sticks? A. Yes.
He had already said that they were doing the climbing sticks in his garage when Steven came over. Here is that testimony: Q. (By Attorney Strang)~ As you and Mike were putting these climbing sticking pads on the deer stand, your Uncle Steven walked over to the garage?
A. Yes.
Q. Came in. He and Mike had some conversation?
A. Yes.
This is, according to Bobby, when the "hide the body" joke occurred.
I've commented about this previously, describing reporters questioning Kratz in a press conference after this testimony occurred. I can't now find it but here's basically what I wrote:
Delete"Kratz appears before the press with the quip "I'm always ready!" Reporters immediately go to the Bobby Dassey's testimony about the "bury the body" remark. Kratz starts to say that Bobby established that it was November 3, but a reporter corrects him and says "No, you are the one who mentioned November 3 when it really took place on November 10 and was said by Mike Osmundsen." Kratz' presidential press conference demeanor kind of collapses. He says, "Bobby Dassey identified the information as occurring on November 3." Another reporter says "No, you identified it as November 3. You said 'On November 3, I believe it was a Thursday, do you recall a conversation with Steven Avery about a body.' Did that come from a report we don't know about?" [The reporters know that it was Mike Osmundsen who actually told the detectives about Steven's comment, not Bobby Dassey, and are trying to find out why Kratz asked Bobby about it as if he was the one who heard it.]
Kratz: "It came from preparation of Bobby Dassey. I always interview my witnesses before they testify."
Reporter: Were the police reports from Mike's statements to police or did Bobby Dassey actually tell you, 'cause it kinda sounds in court that Bobby Dassey never mentioned his conversation or those jokes with investigators, that it was only Mike that mentioned them?
Kratz does not answer the question. Instead he deflects by saying "I understand you are all very excited about this but don't forget the real reason Bobby testified today. Establishing the timeline and establishing that Teresa Halbach walked toward Mr. Avery's house before she was murdered."
Reporter: Why didn't you put Mike on the witness list and call him so you could have avoided this issue?
Kratz: I don't think it was an issue. I get to call my witnesses that I think are going to prove the state's case. Bobby Dassey was not a central figure in this trial.....
When Strang is interviewed later, a reporter asks "What happened?" saying again that it was not Dassey who told the police about the joke, it was a third party, and that Dassey never actually told a detective "this is what I heard." The reporter says: "He [Dassey] didn't say what he said in court today to a detective."
Stang says that as far as the written reports we have, you are exactly correct. But, when asked, he refuses to talk about possible prosecutorial misconduct, saying he is not there to throw stones. A reporter then says: "How can Ken even ask that question then?"
https://old.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/dm8oe2/mike_osmundsons_mistake/