There was a problem under the hood of Teresa Halbach's RAV4: the wrong size battery. #MakingAMurdererhttps://t.co/Xb2RejeWmW— Lick The Knife (@RenyRoha) November 17, 2018
Battery Replacement: 1996-2000 Toyota RAV4 - 2000 Toyota RAV4 2.0L 4 Cyl. https://t.co/AK5shyzdTK #fixeditmyself via @CarCareKiosk
"Interstate ships to fleets thereby their batteries are one of the few with serial numbers. Unbeknownst to me, until I was updated by KZ's team, Interstate also has an 'batch number' that allows them to track a battery throughout the shipping process." - CaseFilesReviewer, December 1, 2018
The 1991-1995 Crown Victoria used the Interstate MT-58 battery. The 1992 model of Crown Victoria was basically referred to as the "police interceptor." According to an article written in April 2000 (see tweet below), the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Office began transitioning from the Ford Crown Victoria squad car to the Chevy Impala model.
Special thanks to @MysticJynx and @BerlySays1 and others, including the initial h/t to Redditor CaseFilesReviewer, without whom this whole discussion might not even matter. I bring you this...enjoy this story:https://t.co/gDypcut0rX— TickTockManitowoc (@TManitowoc) November 18, 2018
The battery size (group 58) found in the RAV4 was only standard in Crown Victorias before 1995 and a few trim levels between 1985-1997 (not including the police "interceptors," which law enforcement were much more likely to have in the fleet). After 1997, most Crown Victorias used the group 65 battery size. So it's not just a matter of finding Crown Vics around Avery Salvage Yard in 2005ish, it's a matter of also going back 10 years prior and identifying the year of the Crown Vics. It's also possible the county was installing nonstandard sized batteries for other reasons, but this is all moot because even if we prove MCSO had vehicles with this type of battery in them (which truly shouldn't be difficult because the majority of police cars across USA in the early to mid 90s were Crown Vics),the only thing that matters is how and by whom that incorrect battery got installed in the RAV4, and whether or not that specific battery can be directly traced to a purchaser other than the victim or Steven Avery. Kathleen Zellner insinuates by her Twitter reply that indeed it was traced to someone. [Source]
In the set of "Police Cars of Wisconsin" at the link below, about halfway though you'll see a 1996 Crown Victoria police car without the "police package" (the 1996 is around 30 out of 80 images):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/triborough/sets/72157628885534663/
There are other Manitowoc Crown Victorias, but the 1996 Crown Vic is the model that has a BCI group size 58 battery like the one found in the RAV4. It's an unmarked police car, which almost every town has.
Also, at the link below is a BCI data book about car batteries:
https://flashoffroad.com/4runner/articles/battery/bci_2014-battery.pdf
Page 6 - Battery Council International Group Sizes are and how to interpret the data
Page 7 - BCI group 35 cell layout
Page 8 - BCI group 58 cell layout (notice the positive and negative are switched, this is why the battery is "upside down" in the RAV4)
Page 35 - Ford Crown Victoria
Page 51 - Toyota RAV4
[Source]
[–]bu2002 wrote a reddit:
When the electronics are added, it is VERY common the alternator does not get upgraded to handle the added electronics and gradually wear down batteries at a much faster rate than normal wear, hence why they upgrade the battery in the beginning. This results in replacement batteries being kept "around," especially when it gets cold as batteries do NOT do the same in the cold, over time.
Furthermore, if they ARE left in a vehicle that is used as a "partial" conversion, i.e. an unmarked/undercover car or lieutenant's car, they are ordered in bulk as replacement parts and kept documented, as most government property, which is used for warranty or replacement from the vendor or local battery distributor.
It's a county, so there are several officials who have county vehicles as well (such as the County Executive), who usually get a similar vehicle, such as a Crown Victoria, that simply does not get the patrol features added. All being serviced and maintenanced at a county facility/barn/shop. Replacement parts would be available for basic service like oil, washers, batteries.
Buying [Impalas starting in 2000] implies going forward, NOT fully turning over the county inventory. That is all budgeted and would not be financially possible to switch the entire lot all at once. For example, high mileage patrol cars are switched out frequently while the county commissioner vehicles are switched out every decade or longer in some cases.
There are several sources of vehicles in a county inventory. Jail transport for example, training vehicles, specialty vehicles. If any Crown Vics were used in any capacity, the county would have maintenance parts in inventory. Batteries are very commonly replaced in cold weather climates. Vehicles with low mileage implies infrequent use which also would correspond to why they still had them in use and needing an infrequent used spare part.
KATHLEEN ZELLNER'S QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION ON TWITTER, NOVEMBER 15, 2018:
Q: How do you know [the RAV4's battery] was replaced?
A: We've confirmed that it was replaced with the wrong-sized battery for the RAV4—the same size battery that is used in Crown Victorias.
Q: How do we know the battery died?
A: Because it was replaced with the wrong size battery and it was still under warranty.
Q: Have your traced who changed the battery or owned the battery that was put in her car?
A: Yes.
They had to explain why, pre-discovery, the battery was disconnected. To fit the narrative of Steven Avery being guilty, he must have been the only person to have been under the hood, so they planted his DNA on the hood latch to leave little doubt of that. Why go to the trouble of creating/planting more evidence months later? Because someone who is not Steven Avery was under the hood, and someone who is not Steven Avery disconnected the battery.
They planted Steven Avery's DNA on the hood latch to place him under the hood, disconnecting the battery, beyond reasonable doubt.
It's covering something, rather than confirming something.
Fassbender and Wiegert had no reason to ask Brendan Dassey about Steven going under the hood. But they did, and the question is why?
Because investigators found themselves in a situation where there was no denying the battery was disconnected when the RAV4 was discovered at Avery Auto Salvage. And they had to explain why.
And this has probative value. It was important enough for them to place Steven under the hood beyond reasonable doubt (with DNA) rather than it being someone or anyone else.
Someone was under the hood WHO shouldn't have been (killer, planter, or LE with a conflict of interest) or someone was under the hood WHEN they shouldn't have been (LE before the 'locked' vehicle was first transported or forensically assessed). Certainly, it was something sinister.
Teresa bought her 1999 RAV4 in 2003. A wrong-size Interstate MT-58 battery was in the RAV4 when it was found. The MT-58 placed in the RAV4 was manufactured in 2004.
Teresa’s 2003 purchase of the RAV4 pre-dates the 2004 manufacture-date of the MT-58 battery in place when the RAV4 was discovered at Avery Auto Salvage. This battery was not already installed when Teresa bought the RAV4.
Whoever placed this over-sized Interstate battery in the RAV4 did it out of quick necessity.
The RAV4 having a MT-58 BATTERY in place at the time of its discovery at ASY is a high value clue: The battery was connected on the evening of the 4th, meaning the RAV4 was driven, not towed, into the salvage yard. And after the RAV4 was driven into the pit of ASY, there was an effort to remove the battery, but the effort was aborted when Steven Avery and Bobby Dassey went to investigate headlights that Chuck Avery spotted in the pit.
Why would the battery be disconnected if the RAV4 was locked and nobody had been in the car or under the hood since before or after it was found at ASY?
LE needed an explanation and reason why the battery already was disconnected when it arrived at the crime lab in Madison after being transported in an enclosed trailer from ASY. So LE planted Steven Avery's DNA under the hood as the reason why the battery was disconnected. Then they got Brendon to corroborate the story.
CASO Page 605
FASSBENDER: OK. Did he, did he, did he go and look at the engine, did he raise the hood at all or anything like that? To do something to that car?
BRENDAN: Yeah.
FASSBENDER: What was that? (pause)
WIEGERT: What did he do, Brendan?
WIEGERT: It's OK, what did he do?
FASSBENDER: What did he do under the hood, if that's what he did? (pause)
BRENDAN: I don't know what he did, but I know he went under.
FASSBENDER: He did raise the hood? (Brendan nods "yes") You remember that?
BRENDAN: Yeah.
WIEGERT: While he was raising the hood, did you take that license plates off?
BRENDAN: (shakes head "no") No.
WIEGERT: Who did?
BRENDAN: He did.
WIEGERT: OK.
FASSBENDER: What did he do with the license plates after that?
BRENDAN: I don't know.
WIEGERT: But you were with him, what did you guys do with 'em?
BRENDAN: He took 'em off...
WIEGERT: And where did he put 'em?
BRENDAN: He had 'em in his house but I don't know after where he put 'em.
WIEGERT: You saw him put 'em in the house? (Brendan nods "yes") And you also saw him do what? Put the key
BRENDAN: Yeah
WIEGERT: Where'd
BRENDAN: In his dresser.
WIEGERT: He put the key?
BRENDAN: In his dresser.
WIEGERT: In his dresser. Where was the knife that he used, 'er you used. Where'd that knife go?
BRENDAN: He left it in the jeep.
CASO Page 838
WIEGERT: Did he tell you that he unhooked the battery on her jeep?
BRENDAN: Not that I know of.
The Manitowoc County Sheriff's Office (MTSO) Investigation Report, on page 3 of 3, reports Ms. Teresa Halbach's vehicle was seized into evidence on November 3rd, 2005. The MTSO Activity Log, on page 1 of 3, reports Mr. Steven Avery was entered into MTSO's CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) as the suspect of a non-negligent homicide on November 3rd, 2005 at 6:34pm. All said documents are inconsistent with the State's account of the crime, but would be consistent with Ms. Teresa Halbach's body and vehicle being found on November 3rd, 2005.
November 3rd, 2005 is the date a witness claims to have informed Officer Colborn where to find Ms. Teresa Halbach's vehicle.
[With] Officer Colborn testifying as being a customer of Avery Auto Salvage (he'd go there to find parts for his 1950 Chevy pickup), it seemed reasonable to conclude an Officer [Colborn] planted the plates the evening of the 3rd [and] then the vehicle the evening of the 4th.
Planting the plates on the 3rd and staging the vehicle on the 4th: Exhibits 3 & 4 revealed the plates had been folded into fourths then unfolded, which Mr. Steven Avery would not have needed to do, and the folding suggested the planter needed to conceal the plates in a jacket pocket. Exhibits 140 & 141 revealed the station wagon's window had been smashed. That could be easily done by using a large MagLight flashlight commonly carried by the police.
In consideration of Exhibit 302, it seemed reasonable to conclude the plates were planted to connect Mr. Steven Avery to Ms. Teresa Hablach's vehicle in the event a battery wasn't obtained.
The battery (Exhibit 302) offers a way to find Ms. Halbach's killer or an evidence planter.
The battery is not a RAV4 battery as evident by it not fitting under the battery hold down.
A 1999 RAV4 uses a group size 35 battery, which in Interstate batteries would be a MT-35. The MT-58, found in the RAV4, is for vehicles such as the Jeep Wrangler [and Ford Crown Victoria]. The installation of an incorrect battery suggests Ms. Halbach's vehicle was ditched in such haste a door was left ajar [or her keys was left in the ignition].
The “J4” on the battery's top left corner indicates month and year manufactured. The letter “J” is the 10th letter of the alphabet thereby the battery was manufactured in October. The “4” is the last digit of the year thereby the battery was manufactured in 2004. On the battery top's left lip is a serial number that is barely visible in the photo. If obtained, the battery can be traced, revealing where it was shipped and purchased, and if registered for warranty, the buyer's name.
[–]7-pairs-of-panties
BOTH batteries had warranties. Teresa’s car was still under warranty. The Interstate M5-58 battery put in the car, the wrong one, was ALSO under warranty as it was from Oct of 04. It was sold to someone be it a person or an organization, and that battery ALSO held a warranty since it was just barely a year old, and batteries have warranties for typically 3 years.
[-] magiclougie
You could expect at least 50,000 miles from the tires that come with any new vehicle.
On average, a car battery lasts from 5 to 7 years and an average of 4 years (the RAV4 was 4-5 years old when Teresa purchased it).
On 1/24/2002, before Teresa bought the car, the original owner had it serviced. At the time the tires were rotated and the battery checked, but neither were replaced (per Carfax).
https://imgur.com/a/iUHv5#AId2706
A dealer bought the car at an auto auction a little more than a year later, on 3/6/2003. At this time the dealer, which may have been LeMieux Toyota of Green Bay, more than likely installed new tires and possibly a new battery. If so, they would have records with dates of the warranties linked to the buyer's name (Teresa).
On 4/4/2003, the RAV4 had 38,379 miles on it.
On 4/8/2003, Teresa purchased the RAV4.
On 10/28/2004, Teresa had the RAV4 serviced at Auto Select Inc. in De Pere, WI (per Carfax).
https://imgur.com/a/iUHv5#AId2706
When she got it serviced on 10/28/2004, it had 63,482 miles on it (during this 18-month period, Teresa had driven 25,103 miles, an average of 1500 miles per month).
If the dealer did not replace the original tires when they bought the car at auction on 3/6/2003, then it still would had the original tires on it. If so, she most likely would have purchased tires on this date, but Auto Select didn't input all the maintenance performed that day (only wiper replacement showed up in Carfax).
If the dealer had not replaced the original battery when Teresa purchased the RAV4, she also most likely would have replaced the battery at this time since the original battery was five years old. It was late October in Wisconsin, and waiting until the deep freeze of winter to replace your battery is often too late.
For warranty purposes, LeMieux Toyota or Auto Select would have recorded/stored in their records the purchase date under Teresa's name.
Zellner says the battery was still under warranty; therefore, if it was defective or had died, Teresa would have taken it to LeMieux Toyota or Auto Select to have it replaced under warranty with the proper battery.
LeMieux Toyota in Green Bay or Auto Select in De Pere would have maintenance records for Teresa's RAV4. Zellner would have contacted them to see if/when a new battery was installed in Teresa's RAV4, and what make and model it was and if the battery was still under warranty as of 10/31/2005.
Former Location:
AUTO SELECT INC
825 Main Ave, De Pere, WI - 54115
(920) 964-0034
Present Location:
Auto Select Green Bay West
2045 S Oneida St.
Green Bay, WI 54304
920-494-4936
[–]7-pairs-of-panties
BOTH batteries had warranties. Teresa’s car was still under warranty. The Interstate M5-58 battery put in the car, the wrong one, was ALSO under warranty as it was from Oct of 04. It was sold to someone be it a person or an organization, and that battery ALSO held a warranty since it was just barely a year old, and batteries have warranties for typically 3 years.
[-] magiclougie
You could expect at least 50,000 miles from the tires that come with any new vehicle.
On average, a car battery lasts from 5 to 7 years and an average of 4 years (the RAV4 was 4-5 years old when Teresa purchased it).
On 1/24/2002, before Teresa bought the car, the original owner had it serviced. At the time the tires were rotated and the battery checked, but neither were replaced (per Carfax).
https://imgur.com/a/iUHv5#AId2706
A dealer bought the car at an auto auction a little more than a year later, on 3/6/2003. At this time the dealer, which may have been LeMieux Toyota of Green Bay, more than likely installed new tires and possibly a new battery. If so, they would have records with dates of the warranties linked to the buyer's name (Teresa).
On 4/4/2003, the RAV4 had 38,379 miles on it.
On 4/8/2003, Teresa purchased the RAV4.
On 10/28/2004, Teresa had the RAV4 serviced at Auto Select Inc. in De Pere, WI (per Carfax).
https://imgur.com/a/iUHv5#AId2706
When she got it serviced on 10/28/2004, it had 63,482 miles on it (during this 18-month period, Teresa had driven 25,103 miles, an average of 1500 miles per month).
If the dealer did not replace the original tires when they bought the car at auction on 3/6/2003, then it still would had the original tires on it. If so, she most likely would have purchased tires on this date, but Auto Select didn't input all the maintenance performed that day (only wiper replacement showed up in Carfax).
If the dealer had not replaced the original battery when Teresa purchased the RAV4, she also most likely would have replaced the battery at this time since the original battery was five years old. It was late October in Wisconsin, and waiting until the deep freeze of winter to replace your battery is often too late.
For warranty purposes, LeMieux Toyota or Auto Select would have recorded/stored in their records the purchase date under Teresa's name.
Zellner says the battery was still under warranty; therefore, if it was defective or had died, Teresa would have taken it to LeMieux Toyota or Auto Select to have it replaced under warranty with the proper battery.
LeMieux Toyota in Green Bay or Auto Select in De Pere would have maintenance records for Teresa's RAV4. Zellner would have contacted them to see if/when a new battery was installed in Teresa's RAV4, and what make and model it was and if the battery was still under warranty as of 10/31/2005.
Former Location:
AUTO SELECT INC
825 Main Ave, De Pere, WI - 54115
(920) 964-0034
Present Location:
Auto Select Green Bay West
2045 S Oneida St.
Green Bay, WI 54304
920-494-4936
The battery KZ was referencing was the one found in TH's RAV4. The battery found in TH's car did not fit the battery mounts thereby TH wouldn't have been driving around with the battery given it would have slid around under the hood. Additionally, TH's RAV4's CarFax established she didn't have the battery installed. The guilters claim it may have been installed by the auction house were it was purchased is bogus. The car was sold at auction in April 03' and the battery found in the car was manufactured in October 04'. Lastly, neither a garage nor dealer would have installed the wrong battery for liability reason nor would parts store have sold the wrong battery. Especially, given the Group Size 35 used by TH's car is far more common than a Group Size 58. In fact,my local parts stores stocks 35s but not 58s and the place I buy parts on line doesn't even sell 58s.
The battery found in TH's RAV4 is a Interstate battery and Interstate warranties their batteries for 18 months. The date code on the battery found in TH's RAV4 is "J4". The "J" denotes the month the battery was manufactured, "J" is the 10th letter of the alphabet thereby denoting 10th month thereby October. The "4" is the last digit of the year the battery was manufactured thereby 2004. The battery was found in TH's car in November 2005 thereby well within its 18 month warranty period.
The battery was a fleet battery as evident by its sticker not being punched. Had the battery been purchased at a retail location its sticker would have been punched to denote warranty from date of purchase. Only a few car models use group size 58 and the area is rural thereby there wouldn't be many places Interstate would be shipping group size 58 batteries. Subsequently, the battery found in TH's RAV4 would be very easy for KZ's team to trace.
The claim Crown Vic Police Interceptors didn't use Group Size 58 is true. However, not all Crown Vics purchased by a municipalities are Interceptors. Interceptors are purchased for high speed pursuits thereby they're purchased for Highway Patrol. Non-Interceptor Crown Vics are purchased for Patrol Cops, Parking Cops, Building Inspectors, Meter Readers....etc. etc. There would be no reason to believe KZ's team didn't trace the battery to a fleet that has Crown Vics given she specifically named Crown Victorian.
A Group Size 58 doesn't fit nicely in a a RAV4 due to its height difference. A Group Size 58 is nearly 2" shorter (1.973" to be exact) than a RAV4 battery. Subsequently, a Group Size 58 would slide around under the hood if installed in a RAV4.
Operationally the problem with installing a Group Size 58 into a RAV4 is threefold:
1. It's going to slide around under the hood.
2. Due to the 58 having different size posts than a 35 used by a RAV4, the battery terminals fit loosely, as evident by the photo of the battery found.
3. As result of 1 & 2, the sliding around causes the loosely fitting terminals to break contact thereby resulting in vehicle not starting or stalling at idle.
The battery debunks a number of the State's claims including KK's "Sweat DNA" theory. Personally, I'm of the opinion AC swabbed some sweaty laundry while SA was in the County Jail. I believe this to be true since the lab never tested for source cells. Subsequently, no one would have been able know the source to be "sweat" unless they knew they sourced it from sweat.
The RAV4 has a cable that allows the cable to be unbolted from the terminal. The battery was most likely disconnected by the tow service before putting the car into the enclosed trailer. There is salvage auction not far from where I live and they require their drivers to disconnect recovered vehicles' batteries. They made that a requirement after they had cars catch on fire during transport.
[-] Soloandthewookiee
The batch number (more accurately the ship date) is stamped into it, it's not a barcode like would be used on in an assembly line traceability system. If they wanted to issue a recall for a batch of batteries, they would just issue a notice that says, "All batteries with ship date 'J4' should be returned to the nearest authorized retailer for replacement."
A factory fitted battery might have a traceability code on it, but Interstate is not an OEM brand, it's aftermarket. Toyota uses "TrueStart" batteries in their factories, Ford uses "Motorcraft" batteries.
[-] jamiegirl21
I am the proverbial fence sitter and rarely comment unless its something I can provide, or a conversation I can contribute to. I see so much conversation about the battery—so I decided to have a conversation with my neighbor. He owns a chunk of the Interstate Battery corporation, and runs the franchise in two states. I have been to his warehouses, and he has a personal warehouse behind his house. This comes in handy when I need a battery last minute from anything from a mower, to my car, to my sump pump.
So I decided to have a conversation with him, and he showed me his batteries, as well as my own, which have come directly from his warehouse. They have no identifiers on them at all.
He supplies to businesses like car repair shops, car businesses, fleets for all sorts. They are delivered without any identifying marks and cannot be traced to him at all EXCEPT, when they get to their destination, the provider may place an identifying marker on them, whether it be a logo, or a barcode, or a serial number—but his batteries, which are the originating source, do not go out with any identification.
Just thought I would share my little interview with him, and I welcome any questions I can chat with him again—I know his family has owned the franchise in two states for at least 20 years—so he is definitely an excellent source of knowledge on this subject. (He doesn’t use reddit, nor would I doubt he has time to).
I asked him further questions after telling him the discussion and will copy and paste his answers (with his permission).
Direct quote: There has never been a recall. Yes, there are #s on a battery they would tell you a date, plant, shift. But those #s could be on thousands of batteries. And they can never be traced back to a dealer or a customer. Let's say a Honda battery that is in your car. I have 500 of them in stock that may have the same numbers on them. They could potentially be shipped anywhere in the world from my location. I have over 1200 customers—they will sale the battery to a end user. Those numbers are never recorded on any invoices ever!! So with that being said, No, the battery can't be tracked after it leaves me.
Further direct quote: Despite buying a battery today it could be a year old when you bought it depending on how popular the battery is. Just for instance, I got batteries in from a warehouse last week that had may 2017 date on them. These were brand new, and to track one down is impossible. Interstate battery of America sales 20 million batteries a year. Johnson controls who makes our batteries—they have 6 plants that make 100 million batteries. The plant closest to us is in Middletown, Delaware. They can make 150,000 batteries a week.
Furthermore, people always buy or are sold the wrong battery. Why? Money is the main reason. Let's say the have a BMW or a Mercedes or even some Chrysler products—a new popular battery that these manufacturers are using would cost you $250. People freak out. They need a battery and yet they only have $100, so they just buy something that fits. We also sell blemished batteries for $43.95. I have seen people install a Ford Escort battery in a Ferrari.
Lastly, I asked him: Do the dealers you sell them to put identifiers on them?
His response was: he’s never seen that.
(This surprised me.)
He said warranties are based off paperwork provided by the seller, only identifying the date of purchase.
Interestingly, in 20 or more years of owning the franchise he has never seen any dealer put any identifying markers.
He was saying how easy it is—where people will steal batteries often from places, due to lack of traceability. He said often, when a car is stolen, he will get a phone call to see about tracing it—and he said never can he and he has no way. It sounded like a touchy subject, meaning it’s a hole in the fabric of the business.
Question I just floated to him: How does your process work supplying government/police vehicles?
Answer: I supply the police, state police and military directly with the batteries. For example, I just supplied Arlington with the batteries that run the cemetery and internal flame. All police in the states where I supply Interstate batteries get them directly from me.
Link is to battery photo taken of a shelf at a large dealership from owner of Interstate. The numbers on the side identify at which factory they were made:
https://i.imgur.com/PMVL5pE.jpg
My friend said that he received 2000 with that code, as well as other franchises. The other numbers present are the manufacture date.
This dealership does not put any other ID on battery—warranty is a generic paper (this is a very large dealership.
I think the point is: Interstate themselves doesn’t put identifier,; but the end user business may— for example a car dealership or a fleet.
The Interstate battery from the start doesn’t send out batteries with identification. The end user business may—some probably do—put their own identifiers on.
I would imagine some of the end-user businesses do put their own identifiers. Definitely if they’re used by government, and maybe car dealerships? I saw a prior user say that Autozone does not put anything on their batteries.
[-] Arts251
> Due to the 58 having different size posts than a 35 used by a RAV4 the battery terminals fit loosely as evident by the photo of the battery found.
The group 58 negative post is 17.9mm, the group 35 post (assuming it is equipped with the EN/JIS type, which is most likely as it's a japanese car and likely specifies JIN standard) is 15.9mm. So if anything the cable terminal will fit tighter, not looser. Or am I doing the math backwards here?
http://www.batterysales.com/downloads/battery-replacement-data-book-1994-2013.pdf
If you've ever changed your battery, the clamp doesn't go with it, it stays with the vehicle. You loosen the clamp from the positive and negative posts and slide them off, loosen or remove the battery hold-down and take out the battery. This is how the Rav4 battery was removed. Someone (ahem, AC), then dropped the Interstate battery in there (it somehow is fitting in there despite that it's an inch longer and a quarter inch wider than the old battery, so it might not be seated in the battery tray and just resting on top of it), pried open the jaws of the clamp a little and slid/pushed them onto the posts of the interstate battery, and did some weird finagling of the battery hold-down to make it look like it was on somehow,it might be partially holding the battery in place despite not being the correct fit (since battery is shorter and also uses a different hold down system). Later, possibly when the Rav4 was moved to the crime lab, and before the photo under the hood was taken, the clamp was disconnected from the cable by unsecuring the cable end bolt, leaving the clamp affixed to the battery.
So nothing in that photo was taken out of a Crown Vic, expect possibly the battery itself, but that is doubtful and makes things way too complicated - the battery was probably taken from a warehouse or shelf somewhere, it was probably a spare, possibly from a Crown Vic or some other vehicle that was part of the Manitowoc fleet and presumably accessible by AC or whomever else may be suspected of putting that battery in the Rav4.
[–]IntriguedLinguist
I understood it the same way you did, because I’m not sure why Battery B being under warranty would be useful information. I’ve been seeing this around a lot and I’m not sure what the logic is either.
Conversely, if Battery A is under warranty, it’s very relevant because this makes it unlikely that TH would have replaced it herself with the wrong kind of battery. She’d have taken it in to a garage to have it replaced, because it wouldn’t have cost her anything.
I don’t Zellner has confirmed which interpretation is correct, though.
[–]ApexxSyn[S]
I’m glad I’m not the only one that hasn’t found it particularly clear!
I assume the significance of the warranty on battery B scenario is that it ‘could’ link to the purchaser/source and if that source was an interesting party linked to TH in some way then that party would have to answer as to why it’s found in the RAV4 crime scene car when it shouldn’t be in there.
It’s hard to tell from KZ’s wording in the tweets exactly which battery she means has the warranty.
Either scenario is an interesting development though.
I do not think it was NECESSARY to find Avery's DNA under the hood; it was necessary to say he went under the hood because LE knew that someone other than Avery disconnected the battery.
The initial idea in my opinion was just to have Brendan say Avery did, but I believe LE realised that Brendan's word would not be solid enough evidence in court so they decided to physically tie him to the hood latch.
The reason why it isn't a blood source could be many. The blood in the RAV may not be Avery's, they may have swapped swabs or taken additional from his car or even of the sink. Or his DNA could have been added to other blood, as my recent post with a New York Times article explains.
All of that may have been unavailable to them when the after thought of the battery issue came up months later and so they had to use what they had left.
The initial idea in my opinion was just to have Brendan say Avery did, but I believe LE realised that Brendan's word would not be solid enough evidence in court so they decided to physically tie him to the hood latch.
The reason why it isn't a blood source could be many. The blood in the RAV may not be Avery's, they may have swapped swabs or taken additional from his car or even of the sink. Or his DNA could have been added to other blood, as my recent post with a New York Times article explains.
All of that may have been unavailable to them when the after thought of the battery issue came up months later and so they had to use what they had left.
Kathleen Zellner on Twitter: "We've confirmed that it was replaced with the wrong-sized battery for the RAV4—the same size battery that is used in Crown Victorias" - Police cars are traditionally and almost ALWAYS Crown Victorias.
[-] FrankFinklestein
Is it possible whoever parked the car removed the battery so the Rav4 couldn't be moved? Leaving Colborn...whoever found it, no choice but to install a new battery and quickly.
I just think if it was a dead battery they would have just boosted it, instead of swapping it out.
[-] FrankFinklestein
Are police cars all equipped with jump starters? Takes a couple of minytes to boost a battery this way. Way more efficient time wise then swapping a battery unless there was no battery to boost.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
The thing with jumping, besides it requiring someone to have jumper cables, and if the battery is really drained, it takes time for the other vehicle to charge the other vehicle's battery.
If a person is sitting along a highway, trying to get a vehicle off as fast as possible, it's far faster to just slap another battery in. This also eliminates the chance of the jumped vehicle stalling at the first stop sign/light as result of the battery not yet charged enough to run both the electronic ignition & fuel pump.
Another factor with jumping is while attempting to charge two batteries (the one if the vehicle jumping and the one in the vehicle being jumped) the alternator can be overloaded, causing its internal rheostat to blow. Many people, including myself, will no longer offer jumps as result of having blown an alternator in the process.
[-] FrankFinklestein
You don't necessarily need two vehicles to boost a car battery (jump starter, quick boost).
[-] SparePattern
I agree with the time factor in this -- your goal is to get this car moved as fast as possible unseen.
Sitting hood to hood with a car jumping it takes time and gets a lot of attention, even as little as a passerby thinking "ya, I wonder who's stuck on da side of da road der?" and trying to see if they know the person.
With replacing it, it's planned so they have tool in hand, already set on what they need to do, get it out, slam in the new one, connect, and bing bang boom.
My other thought is LE could explain away being caught under the hood "looking for evidence" but can't really explain away jumping a car when protocol would be get it towed or on a flatbed.
[-] FrankFinklestein
I know from my own experience when I forget to turn my headlights out. The next day I go and try and start my car. I first noticed the car won't start, then I noticed I left the light switch on. My immediate reaction isn't I got to swap batteries. I get my jump starter, quick boost and boost my battery. It takes one person, one car and about five minutes of time.
I think whoever found the Rav4 and came up with the idea to plant it, tried to start it, couldn't, was dead. Took a quick look around to why it was dead, light switch still on, interior lights on or whatever. Then they popped the hood to boost, and found there was no battery. Leaving them no option but to install a new battery.
[–]In_my_experience
Oh, that is another interesting idea. But why would the killer take the battery out in the first place?
The only reason I can can see for switching the battery out instead of boosting the car is you have to park your on the side of the road for the boost, and if someone drives up suddenly you can't get away without being seen. Especially if there's a blind corner or something. Or, if the Rav was left in a way that made accessing it for boosting awkward, like there were trees in the way so you couldn't easily drive up beside it.
I can imagine a situation where someone drops the other person off with a new battery at night, so they can work in the dark without being seen by anyone passing by, or hide or run into the woods if someone stopped, then once they have the battery in, they can go and plant the Rav, or meet the other person to help plant the Rav then drive them both away.
[-] FrankFinklestein
The killer didn't want the car to move to keep the police focused on the area where the Rav4 was found, while the killer cleaned the kill site, body, etc somewhere else.
The points I'm trying to make is that the battery was removed by the killer or someone that was an accessory.
The killer or accessory parked it for police to find. I believe the killer or accessory dumped the Rav4 and intended on it being its final resting place.
The killer and accessory wanted to make sure no one moved the car so they took the battery out of the Rav4.
The killer or accessory did this so the police would focus on the area of Rav4, giving the killer and accessory extended time to clean the kill spot, body, etc.
I think strongly that that if the battery was still in the Rav4 when AC found it, they simply would of just boosted it. Whether it was a boost from cables, power boost box, etc, doesn't matter.
If the battery wasn't in the Rav4 when AC found it, then that would make sense to why a different battery was in the Rav4.
In any situation where your under the gun you go with what's fastest and easiest, which would be to boost the Rav4, unless you absolutely can't and then logically you would go to step 2, replacing the battery.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
MTSO used Crown Victorias, and spare batteries would be kept in the County Garage ;)
[–]proudfootz
Or perhaps the battery came out of a car that was at a rival salvage yard in the area?
[–]rogblake
Funny you should mention that -- as many will remember, Killer Ken's buddy, Hermann, had a salvage yard, and the business used to do the police fit-outs for the area's squad cars. These facts all came to light in the Hochstetler matter.
Before he chose law enforcement, he [MTSO Sheriff Robert Hermann] had worked in an auto body shop and a salvage yard, skills that came in handy when he and his younger brother, Todd Hermann, would detail the squad cars that used to come directly from the factory as blank slates. Their work, which also included installing radio equipment and light bars, would get more elaborate and professional-looking as time went on, he said.
http://www.htrnews.com/story/news/local/2014/07/01/sheriff-robert-hermann-recalls-career-highlights-changes/11944007/[–]columbomumbojumbo
I think that series of I.B. was universal fleet use, due to the transition of the Crown Vics to the Impala. CV top post and the Impala side post connections. Quick swap for the motor pool mechanics.
[-] Newthingstobeseen
I'm thinking that they had to explain the battery being disconnected and being a different battery to distract also if someone starts looking into that.
So if they get his DNA on the hood latch, who cares why SA was doing stuff with the battery, his DNA is there!
Additionally, I remember some people saying "well he was going to crush it and changed his mind. Everyone knows that you have to take a battery out before crushing it."
Once SA's DNA was found on the hood latch, then everyone was running in different directions trying to explain what he was doing.
[-] Xenu_RulerofUniverse
How did they figure it out without access to the RAV4?
[-] Newthingstobeseen
If it's a government purchase then, yeah, it may be registered and traced in a group purchase.
[-] Kayki7
Possibly LE wasn’t able to swap it back because PoG discovered the RAV too soon.... and because of all the commotion and people around, they couldn’t. Which makes a lot of sense, seeing as 2 police departments would have been present once PoG discovered the RAV (Calumet & Manitowoc Sheriffs).
Also, PoG stated that she did see a person standing on a ridge off in the distance, just standing there.... she didn’t know who he was or what he was doing there..... this person could have been the person who was supposed to swap the battery back... but didn’t get a chance too since PoG found the RAV and called it in!
Which begs the question, where is the original battery?
[-] Arts251
Where did the prosecution go with their assertion that Brendan watched SA open the hood to disconnect the battery - did they give any explanation why SA did this?
You'd think this information would easily have led the investigation to realize the Rav4 had the wrong size battery, so who installed it?
No maintenance records (and there were a number of them for things like windshield wipers being replaced etc) indicate a battery was changed from the OEM one or suggest why the wrong size would have been installed (was it even "installed" in the Rav4 or was it just placed there without the hold-downs fastened?)
[–]sober_ogre
Back then a lot of agencies had dual batteries installed. One was for basic functioning of the car and the other was for equipment. I bet most wouldn't ever think about the town/county service garages keeping details on things like batteries.
In the photos and interviews we can see old Vics in the background. And there's the issue with LEO badges being found in the office. Maybe someone was impersonating officers.
[–]Boobah2016
NASCAR, pimped out rides running high end audio/video systems, and LEO running auxiliaries like lights, radios, computers....in a part of the country that gets cold as shit and kills batteries. Makes a shit ton of sense that they would go dual.
[-] iamnextset
Can the county just claim they put one of their batteries in the vehicle during their testing?
[–]Boobah2016
They could, but then her original battery would be put back in for the crime lab or logged separately into evidence. After all, if SA was messing with it, it's evidentiary (as opposed to, say, her transmission pan gasket, which neither SA or anyone else is accused of having tampered with).
[–]unfurL
So she is hinting that she knows that the battery was swapped by the cops?
If that’s the case, wouldn’t that be grounds for total exoneration? That proves without a doubt that they had a hand in moving the car.
[–]Boobah2016
Yes, I think she is.
While they could say they changed the battery after finding the car, they would still have to have her actual battery logged into evidence, photographed, etc, to close any reasonable doubt. After all, they asserted SA was tinkering with it, so why would the original battery not be in evidence?
[–]unfurL
Well, if they say “we changed the battery after the car was found on the property”, that would be extremely suspicious. They would need to answer why they did that, and why they didn’t tell anybody that they did that.
[–]luckystar2591
I think she's deliberately done this with a month between filing to see if she can flush out any new witnesses. There's gonna be a lot of people with brown underwear at this...and maybe someone looking to save their skin?
[–]Henbury
Moving the RAV -- they already placed him in the car (his blood), he had a motive to move or hide the car, and the car had obviously been moved. Convincing a jury he moved the car was already in the bag.
Considering there was already an awareness the battery had been disconnected, if the lab processed the car properly, the DNA under the hood should have been discovered the first time around.
Sure, they came back later and planted the bookcase key and the bullet to tie SA to the crime. This solved problems.
But it strikes me that the discovery of SA's DNA under the hood, later, doesn't fit the MO of planting evidence tying SA to the crime (although it helped).
And non-blood DNA could have been planted anywhere on or in that car, preferably somewhere not already swabbed.
And non-blood DNA could have been planted anywhere on or in that car, preferably somewhere not already swabbed.
The hood latch DNA is different. It strikes me as though the DNA was planted not to tie SA to the car or provide an alternate source of DNA; but to place SA under the hood, disconnecting the battery, beyond reasonable doubt.
Why? There must have been something that investigators/prosecutors were worried about the defence deducing or adducing from under the hood, something that was available to the defence -- so much so that they went to the trouble of planting DNA (a 'new' non-blood source for whatever reason, and albeit a non-credible one) well after the car had already been processed, to put it beyond question or curiosity.
As I said, they could have just claimed "we think SA got under the hood and disconnected the battery" like the rape claims where they had no physical evidence. But on this occasion they aimed higher.
This is concealment, not additional evidence. There's something here, and it's important.
[-] magiclougie
Yep, the Interstate 58 battery from MTSO's maintenance garage or undersheriff Hermann's salvage yard. Colborn went under the hood to replace a battery so that the RAV4 could be driven from the turnaround and planted at ASY.
[-]Earnest L Martin
They aren’t the same vehicle [Teresa Halbach's RAV4 and the RAV4 discovered at ASY].
The wheels and the dashboard VIN plate were swapped. It probably took them about 30 minutes to do it. And it was probably done in a garage, with both vehicles side by side. Maybe in a salvage yard garage? Who do we know that owns one of those (in competition with the Avery’s and happens to be owned by someone high up in law enforcement)?
But wait. What about the other VIN numbers stamped on all vehicles in various other places? Good question. Apparently no law enforcement investigators at the Avery salvage yard bothered to check those other locations. And whoever originally swapped it probably felt confident that no one would bother to check it at the crime lab, either. And why should they? Those other VIN plates are worth just about $36 million.
Amazingly, the defense attorneys never bothered to ask about them, either.
Quite possibly, the Halbach family had ties to Robert Hermann, the sheriff, who just happens to own the only competing auto salvage business to the Avery’s. One that allegedly does $1.5 million a year in business. And one that would profit greatly from any loss of business at the Avery’s due to the bad publicity of Steven Avery.
https://imgur.com/a/zJcQi3j
When you look at what really happened in the original rape case, and then look at all the players in that scripted crime, you see much more than just a local crooked law enforcement. You see associated civilian people (the club?) with means. Means to relocate someone. Someone who perhaps was looking for a ticket out of town. Or someone who was coerced, bribed or threatened to move.
Or maybe she was simply offered relocation in the state’s Witness Protection Program? You have a crooked state judicial system. You have crooked law enforcement. Both work hand in hand. What better way to eliminate someone (without murdering them) than to coerce them to accept relocation under the strict guidelines of the Witness Protection Program. And under the law, no attorney or investigator can legally expose any participants in the program. She is safe from exposure ― even if she is discovered!
But where could she have gone? Anywhere in the country. Or anywhere out of the country. Out of the country is less than a day’s journey. Maybe she even took her own green/teal RAV4, which would be why they had to substitute another vehicle. Or maybe she abandoned that vehicle on the Highway 147 turnabout where her vehicle was last spotted (parked and presumably investigated by law enforcement, which would explain why Colborn called in the plates long before the blue RAV4 is planted)?
Maybe she then ended up in the local mental facility, drugged to the point of not being able to make rational decisions on her own. Or maybe she wasn’t drugged but was just a special “guest” there until arrangements for her relocation could be made. The possibilities are endless.
http://ernestlmartin.com/avery/THE%20STEVEN%20AVERY%20CASE%20-%20SOLVED.pdf
http://ernestlmartin.com/avery/WHY%20NO%20ONE%20IS%20UNDERSTANDING%20THE%20STEVEN%20AVERY%20CASE.pdf
[-]Earnest L Martin
They aren’t the same vehicle [Teresa Halbach's RAV4 and the RAV4 discovered at ASY].
The wheels and the dashboard VIN plate were swapped. It probably took them about 30 minutes to do it. And it was probably done in a garage, with both vehicles side by side. Maybe in a salvage yard garage? Who do we know that owns one of those (in competition with the Avery’s and happens to be owned by someone high up in law enforcement)?
But wait. What about the other VIN numbers stamped on all vehicles in various other places? Good question. Apparently no law enforcement investigators at the Avery salvage yard bothered to check those other locations. And whoever originally swapped it probably felt confident that no one would bother to check it at the crime lab, either. And why should they? Those other VIN plates are worth just about $36 million.
Amazingly, the defense attorneys never bothered to ask about them, either.
Quite possibly, the Halbach family had ties to Robert Hermann, the sheriff, who just happens to own the only competing auto salvage business to the Avery’s. One that allegedly does $1.5 million a year in business. And one that would profit greatly from any loss of business at the Avery’s due to the bad publicity of Steven Avery.
https://imgur.com/a/zJcQi3j
When you look at what really happened in the original rape case, and then look at all the players in that scripted crime, you see much more than just a local crooked law enforcement. You see associated civilian people (the club?) with means. Means to relocate someone. Someone who perhaps was looking for a ticket out of town. Or someone who was coerced, bribed or threatened to move.
Or maybe she was simply offered relocation in the state’s Witness Protection Program? You have a crooked state judicial system. You have crooked law enforcement. Both work hand in hand. What better way to eliminate someone (without murdering them) than to coerce them to accept relocation under the strict guidelines of the Witness Protection Program. And under the law, no attorney or investigator can legally expose any participants in the program. She is safe from exposure ― even if she is discovered!
But where could she have gone? Anywhere in the country. Or anywhere out of the country. Out of the country is less than a day’s journey. Maybe she even took her own green/teal RAV4, which would be why they had to substitute another vehicle. Or maybe she abandoned that vehicle on the Highway 147 turnabout where her vehicle was last spotted (parked and presumably investigated by law enforcement, which would explain why Colborn called in the plates long before the blue RAV4 is planted)?
Maybe she then ended up in the local mental facility, drugged to the point of not being able to make rational decisions on her own. Or maybe she wasn’t drugged but was just a special “guest” there until arrangements for her relocation could be made. The possibilities are endless.
http://ernestlmartin.com/avery/THE%20STEVEN%20AVERY%20CASE%20-%20SOLVED.pdf
http://ernestlmartin.com/avery/WHY%20NO%20ONE%20IS%20UNDERSTANDING%20THE%20STEVEN%20AVERY%20CASE.pdf
[–]MMonroe54
> If the lab processed the car properly, the DNA under the hood should have been discovered the first time around.
Absolutely. And if LE hadn't disconnected the battery, they would have included "under the hood" in their process.
If they didn't "need" the DNA under the hood, they wouldn't have bothered with it at all.
Did they think the defense was going to ask to investigate under the hood, find something there that shouldn't be there if SA did it?
Did they think the defense was going to ask to investigate under the hood, find something there that shouldn't be there if SA did it?
Claiming something is not proving something...and they were always thinking of the jury, who they know are convinced/impressed by "proof" or scientific evidence. They dropped the rape and kidnapping charges because they had no proof.
[-] magiclougie
> Did they think the defense was going to ask to investigate under the hood, find something there that shouldn't be there if SA did it?
Yep, the wrong size Interstate MT-58 battery from the MTSO maintenance garage or undersheriff Hermann's salvage yard.
[-] magiclougie
> Did they think the defense was going to ask to investigate under the hood, find something there that shouldn't be there if SA did it?
Yep, the wrong size Interstate MT-58 battery from the MTSO maintenance garage or undersheriff Hermann's salvage yard.
[–]Henbury
> But if they didn't "need" the DNA under the hood, why bother with it at all?
This is my point.
I consider that in their mind, DNA evidence is "beyond reasonable doubt" to a jury, so that's why the DNA evidence gets planted.
But they had already established DNA evidence (blood) tying SA to the car. And if they'd planted DNA on the hood latch from the start, they would have swabbed it, or encouraged an unknowing lab tech to swab it, the first time the car was processed, to crystalise the forensic case from the beginning.
The hood latch DNA was planted later. But why?
Two theories have evolved -
(1) to establish an alternate source of DNA in case the blood evidence got thrown out or
(2) it placed SA under the hood, presumably disconnecting the battery.
Two theories have evolved -
(1) to establish an alternate source of DNA in case the blood evidence got thrown out or
(2) it placed SA under the hood, presumably disconnecting the battery.
I don't buy the theory that they had to plant an alternate source of DNA on the car tying it to SA in case the blood got thrown out; they could have planted it anywhere in or on the car (ideally somewhere documented as not swabbed when it was first processed). So why the hood latch, specifically?
It was such a risk to plant additional DNA that was inconsistent with previous samples and findings ('sweat' vs blood), months after the car had already been processed. I think they actually ran a higher risk having the 'sweat' DNA thrown out than they did the blood (by both the delay to discover it and forensically). So why take that risk? What was so important about the hood latch?
Placing SA under the hood, beyond reasonable doubt, solves the problem of the disconnected battery.
To disconnect the battery requires handling the hood latch, which can only be done by handling the hood release in the car interior. That requires being inside the vehicle.
I don't accept that the battery was disconnected at the lab. A LEO following protocol, or wanting to ensure their planted evidence survived the trip to the lab, would disconnect the battery.
Admitting LEO disconnected the battery would lead to a line of inquiry establishing that they were in the vehicle when they shouldn't have been. That casts doubt on evidence collection, and (since they already had motive) gives them the opportunity to plant the evidence that was found when the car was first processed.
Was the RAV on an open trailer or inside an enclosed one?
Not impossible, but logistically a lot of effort to open the hood and disconnect the battery in an enclosed trailer. They would also need a reason to check?
By the same logic, not impossible but logistically a lot of effort to achieve anything nefarious in an enclosed trailer.
[–]Henbury
I'm a believer in lies having a grain of truth. In the circumstances, if innocent, LE were looking for ways to discover evidence that was consistent with their real life findings.
For example, I think in real life the discovery of blood in the Grand Am and/or the cut on SA would predate the 'discovery' of physical blood in the RAV4.
They took inspiration from a real life event and made it plausible in a lie.
They took inspiration from a real life event and made it plausible in a lie.
I wonder whether they discovered something under the hood, about a person or DNA, that wasn't SA's and wasn't meant to be there?
Like I said about the rape, an actual crime, they claimed it without physical evidence.
Like I said about the rape, an actual crime, they claimed it without physical evidence.
Really, why under the hood, and why DNA?
[-] magiclougie
> I wonder whether they discovered something under the hood, about a person or DNA, that wasn't SA's and wasn't meant to be there?
They were made aware of photographs documenting that the planters (specifically, Colborn) placed an Interstate MT-58 battery from a Crown Victoria into the RAV4 before it was driven from the turnaround on Highway 147 to ASY.
[–]Henbury
> But if the battery cables had been disconnected per protocol, as the Degnitz memo **strongly** suggests, that means that there was a very ordinary reason for why the cables were disconnected, and one they knew about.
But the prosecution narrative was that SA disconnected the battery. That means no LEO admitted they did it, nor can they admit it now.
They can't come back from that. It means that there is no ordinary reason why the battery was disconnected (by them).
It must have been true that the vehicle was 'discovered' at ASY with the battery disconnected.
So again, I ask, if innocent, why go to such trouble to point to SA doing it? They could have just claimed it without physical evidence like the rape.
I think we all understand the suggestion is that someone who is not SA disconnected the battery...
So again, I ask, if innocent, why go to such trouble to point to SA doing it? They could have just claimed it without physical evidence like the rape.
I think we all understand the suggestion is that someone who is not SA disconnected the battery...
[–]ms_brabant[S]
Actually, no one ever said that it was SA who disconnected the battery cables. The prosecution never contends this, so it's not actually part of the narrative. What they do is cleverly imply that he must have because his DNA is found on the hood latch.
[–]s_wardy_s
My belief is the presence of someone else was found under the hood, and this needed to be covered up at any length.
We talked about on the old MaM sub over two years ago, and the general consensus was that items that would have identified a third person (such as the person who moved the car onto the lot or the "real killer") were not actually tested or could have been covered up.
And KZ being super cluey, did request some of those items to be tested.
And KZ being super cluey, did request some of those items to be tested.
I don't have a list of the items in front of me but how does one get under the hood without first popping it from the inside the car? Was the hood release tested? I know she asked for the lug wrench, and seat adjuster to be tested, along with other stuff.
[-] magiclougie
Zellner's expert does several experiments and contends the following:
- the blood spatter found in the RAV was selectively planted and that there would have been blood in many more places if he was actively bleeding.
- they did experiments with Steven with blood on his finger to show that it would have also been deposited on the outside door handle, key, key ring, steering wheel, gear shift lever, brake lever, battery cables, and hood prop instead of just the six places it was found.
The Latest ruling by Judge A. S. argues:
No communication was made to the court indicating that the original motion was incomplete and would be supplemented with further information. Only after the court fully considered the evidence submitted and issued its final ruling did the defense finally alert the court to the fact that it was working on further evidence to support its arguments.
This July 14, 2017 letter appears to contradict that statement, when it states the following at the bottom of page 1 and the top of page 2:
The parties [the state and the defense], in their communication, agreed that the testing would be done in stages and, depending upon the outcome of the testing, further testing could be done on additional items of evidence delineated in Mr. Avery’s motion for scientific testing. Certain items of evidence have not been release for examination and retesting. They are summarized as follows:
“New DNA testing on evidence not previously tested (the prop, the battery cable, the interior hood release of the victim’s vehicle, the blinker light, the lug wrench, and the purple thong underwear).” (Motion for Scientific Testing, p. 14);
“New and improved DNA testing of previously tested items (the license plates and swabs taken from the victim’s car)” (Id.);
DNA testing on burnt material found at the Radiant deer hunting camp west of the Avery salvage yard to determine whether there are any items of evidentiary value at the deer camp. (Id., p. 22).
A comparison of the fingerprints of Sergeant Andrew Coburn and Lieutenant James Lenk to unidentified prints on victim’s vehicle. (Id., p. 42).
Examination of the victim’s vehicle. (Id. pp. 21-22);
Swabs from stains on the floor of Mr. Avery’s garage, his bathroom, and his trailer. (Id., p. 31-32);
Swabs from stains in Mr. Avery’s vehicle. (Id., pp. 37-38); and
Unspent .22 LR ammunition recovered in Mr. Avery’s trailer. (Id., p. 41).
[–]Henbury
The Carfax report says Teresa purchased the RAV4 in August 2003.
In Exhibit 192, the MT-58 battery cover is stamped “J4” which means the battery was manufactured in October 2004 (J = 10th month, 4 = ‘04).
Teresa’s purchase of the vehicle pre-dates the manufacture of the MT-58 battery. It was not already installed when she bought the car.
[–]7-pairs-of-panties
Battery may have been stolen out of the car as it sat abandoned for 3 1/2 days at the turnaround. When somebody needed to move the car they couldn’t cause no battery. Easier to replace the battery than to have the RAV towed -- that would have caused too much of a scene.
[–]Slinkydonko
The car was made in 99, the battery was made in 2004, her car history shows she got wiper blades replaced, nothing about battery.
[–]idunno_why
Tracking down a battery for a fleet car is probably easier than tracking to an individual ....parts and service records being kept and all.
The county garage probably orders batteries in bulk and maybe they even have consecutive serial/production numbers on the lot of them.
The county garage probably orders batteries in bulk and maybe they even have consecutive serial/production numbers on the lot of them.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
Easier yet, it can be traced to were it was shipped and who the warranty was under.
Fleet batteries are the easiest to trace, since it's a business to business shipment. Conversely, those purchased at retail locations are just punched and the person is expected to keep the receipt.
The battery is clearly a fleet battery as evident by the 4 not being punched and the "J4" indicating the battery was manufactured.
Keep in mind it's not like Manitowoc County WI is Los Angeles County CA. Interstate isn't going to be shipping to many fleets in Manitowoc County. Subsequently, making it very easy for KZ to trace via Interstate.
[–]columbomumbojumbo
I had to register my Interstate Battery for the warranty.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
Yup, the battery can be traced to shipping location and if registered for warranty to a name.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
I went after the 04', instead of the 99', given a witness claiming he saw a white Jeep following the RAV4. The search revealed both use group size 24. It was during the process of that search that I found that Crown Vics used a group size 58.
That is the group size number of the battery found in TH's RAV4. The battery that was suppose to be in her car was group size 35.
First, I've spent countless hours reviewing the case file. I know the case file like the back of my hand but I truly can't recall what was and was not in the documentary.
While I was reviewing the photo Exhibits there were a number of photos that struck me as odd. Exhibit 302 was one such photo therein I noticed the battery found in TH's vehicle didn't fit her car:
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Exhibit-302-RAV4-Battery-Disconnected.jpg
You will notice within the Exhibit the battery doesn't fit under the battery hold down. As result, if TH drove her car with that battery as soon as she took a turn at speed it would have slid causing its positive terminal to make contact with the metal hold down bracket. As result of the bracket being a solid ground, the battery would have shorted and caught fire.
When I first started my search, I was using a part store's website which required me to know the vehicle in advance. I kept just trying different vehicles looking for a match, but that was very hit & miss. Subsequently, I began looking for a way to find all vehicles that used that size battery.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
The battery found in the car has a lower cold cranking amperage therefore it's only larger in size. The battery is nearly 2" shorter (1.975" to be exact) therefore it has plenty of room for the battery to move. The battery cables, which are stranded core to reduce resistance, would not hold the battery in place due to physics. The battery has more mass than the battery cables thereby at velocity, when the vehicle takes a turn, the battery will generate more force the cables. Additionally, the cables connect the battery to the engine (postive to starter, negative to engine itself as a ground) Therefore, the forces being generated by the cables are in the same direction as the battery's thereby the cables only assist the battery to move when the vehicle turns right. .
There are four factors when jumping a vehicle:
1) Does the person have jumper cables.
2) How drained is the battery.
3) Does the jumping vehicles's alternator generate enough amperage to charge both batteries.
2) How drained is the battery.
3) Does the jumping vehicles's alternator generate enough amperage to charge both batteries.
4) Can the jumper cable's wire gauge handle the amperage needed without melting.
The second and third go together, if the vehicle battery is completely drained than jumping vehicle's RPM has to be brought up then retained to allow the jump vehicle's alternator to charge the other vehicle's.
The fastest and most reliable way to get a car with a dead battery going again is to replace its battery.
[-] SBRH33
> For instance is pretty common to swap out 58 for 34. You can theoretically use any battery, the standards exist for a reason, fit in housing, posts not touching hood, etc
This is completely wrong. I'm not going to debate this.
Teresa's RAV4 had the wrong size battery installed period. It was way too much amperage for that Toyota model period.
It doesn't matter if it fit in the cabin tray.
Toyota, Honda and Suburau are tech sticklers for correct battery size in their vehicles for a host of reasons related to the complex proprietary electrical components of these vehicles.
Any person who can use Google can easily figure this out. For instance:
https://itstillruns.com/problems-using-large-auto-battery-7449907.html
The RAV4 having that size INTERSTATE BATTERY in place at the time of its discovery IMO is a high value clue.
Whoever put that battery in there did it out of quick necessity.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
You are correct and the other user seems to just pulling information out of their backside. It would be incredibility stupid to replace a group size 34 with a 58, since the 58 isn't as tall thereby it will slide around. If the battery mount is the same as in TH's RAV4, the positive terminal would slide right into the mounting bracket. To claim people commonly replace a 34 with 58, as the other user is claiming, is pure absurdity.
[–]SBRH33
It is very difficult to buy the wrong size battery.
For starters you have to bring your old battery to the -Point Of Purchase to receive the CORE REFUND
All stores have on location the sizing books outlining the battery sizes for all make and model vehicles.
A shop would never place the wrong size battery in a vehicle.
It is true a vehicle will run with any size battery in the tray. But it will suffer electrical damages no doubt.
Someone put that oversized Interstate battery in the RAV4 out of quick necessity.
[–]SBRH33
Everyone is an expert huh. Sounds familiar.
Listen, its simple. The battery that was discovered in the RAV4 was completely the wrong battery period. That battery does not even come close to the OEM designation for that Toyota model vehicle.
A shop would never make that mistake.
No reason for a consumer to make that mistake since the sizing charts are available right where you would select the battery for your car.
The battery purchase is backed up at the Point Of Purchase. If one bought the battery at say a Pep Boys, Autozone or any auto parts dealer in the states, there is a thing called a CORE CHARGE. Its connected to the store UPC Code on the battery. So you bring your old battery in and accidentally buy the wrong size battery... the UPC code at the POP would recognize that the CORE CHARGE is different and it would alert the cashier that the wrong size battery was selected. The very nice store associate would then fetch the correct battery and you would be on your way.
The battery size is directly stickered and stamped on the battery. It is as simple as selecting the same exact battery from the shelf as the battery in the car.
There are so many stop gaps from selecting the incorrect battery for your car its hilarious.
So how did the completely wrong size battery get placed in the RAV4?
Come to think of it, why didn't investigators trace back the battery purchase? I am sure the UPC was still on the battery somewhere. Ah Shucks, just another investigative avenue ignored.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
12 volt car batteries are more common, but older cars used 6 volt batteries. Why you didn't bother to check if the battery fit before buying seems foolish. First, because there are 79 different battery sizes. Second, because there are 5 different terminal sizes. Third, because there are reverse terminal batteries.
Failure to buy the correct size battery results in the following:
Failure to buy the correct size battery results in the following:
1) The battery not fitting in the battery tray.
2) The battery not fitting the battery mounts.
3) The car battery cable not fitting the battery terminals.
4) The car's battery cables not being long enough to connect the battery
Why would you spend the money for a new battery without knowing if fit your car?
Reverse post batteries are denoted with an "R" at the end. There is a 58R, as well as 58, but no 35R just a 35. TH's RAV4 took a 35 versus a Crown Vic took a 58 thereby neither used reverse post batteries.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/4obrkn/mt58_battery_has_wrong_negativepositive_post/
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
My point is the battery found in TH's car doesn't fit as evident by Exhibit 302. As result over being nearly 2" shorter, the battery would have slid causing it positive terminal to ground to the metal bracket as soon as TH took a right turn at speed. Thus, TH could not have been driving around with the battery found in her car.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
I traced it down after noticing it didn't fit under the hold down:
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Exhibit-302-RAV4-Battery-Disconnected.jpg
I wracked my brain out, for about a year, trying to find what vehicles it fit using a part's store website. The week before last I obtained access to the Battery Council International (BCI) data thereby allowing me to do reverse lookup by BCI number. To my pleasant surprise, very few vehicles use group size 58 and to my delight the MTSO's Crown Vics did :)
It's a small world after all Andy..... (self.TickTockManitowoc)
by CaseFilesReviewer
November 6, 2018
I finally found a source that allowed reverse lookup on BCI (Battery Counsel International) Group Size to be performed. To my surprise & delight, very few vehicles use a group size 58 thereby the MT-58 only fits the following vehicles:
Ford Crown Victoria
Ford T-Bird
Ford Tempo
Jeep Wrangler
Kia Sportage
Mazda B2000
I knew it fit Jeep Wrangers, but not of Crown Vics. Crown Vics, of course, are commonly used in Law Enforcement as demonstrated by the photo within the article linked below:
http://www.wssociety.co.uk/features/2016/4/13/junkyard-justice
[–]subzero0000
HOLY SHIT!!! She has legitimately tracked that battery down to a police car?
[–]The_Reliant
Hard to say for sure, but the fact she has traced who the battery came from, plus her comments on it being the type for a Crown Vic (police style car back in those days, some now), is what is big. Being the type of battery for a Crown Victoria on its own isn't as solid, as it can also be the battery for other make and model cars as well, but including Crown Vic.
I don't think she would have mentioned it being similar to a Crown Vic battery if she knew it came off of some random old car out in the salvage yard etc...
I think she's slow playing this person who changed/owned the battery, encouraging them to come forward and tell more of the story than she'd probably get if she were to spill it all out.
[-] finfangfark
My thoughts as well.
Trying to smoke them out to see what potential conflicting stories they tell.
[-] hnfhelper
The only picture of the battery I have seen looks intentionally cropped to not reveal the entire label on the battery.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer[S]
She likely has better photos than what were used as Exhibits.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer[S]
The battery was less than a year old when found and KZ has already traced the warranty information. The State can say whatever they want but warranty holder is the warranty holder and given the battery is from a Crown Vic, the holder is more than likely the County's Garage.
I don't know if they keep track of what specific battery was installed or removed. I did know it's standard operating procedure for a county garage to send in the warranty information.
The battery was purchased within the year by the "J4" stamped on it. The "J4" means it was manufactured in October 2004 (J is the 10th letter of the alphabet thereby indicates October and the 4 is the last digit of year). It would have been purchased within the year, since October 2004 was when it was made, not purchased.
[–]OhioBigMac
My gut with this is that she is indirectly implicating the Manty Popo in the planting of the Rav in the salvage yard. If the Rav was left at the turnaround like Zellner believes, it would have been done in a hurry. Maybe the key was left on in the rush. Maybe a door was cracked and the dome light was on. Lots of reasons the battery could be dead when Colburn rolls up on it. An obvious source for a replacement could be to call in a favor from a buddy in the Manty maintenance group. Especially if the idea and opportunity of framing Avery popped into your head and you were already thinking forward about how to cover your tracks. Too bad for Colburn that he didn’t have the foresight to think about the damn battery warranty and all the worldwide attention the case would have. This scenario has me thinking about the key. I’ll bet anything the key set TH used was in that ignition and I’ll bet our buddy Colburn knows exactly where he disposed of them. That’s one guy I know who would never voluntarily subject himself to brain fingerprinting lol. Fucking dirty bastard.
[–]now_biff
What say the battery had been stolen out of what appeared to be an abandoned SUV on the side of the road. That’s a fairly common thing to happen to dumped cars no question, Things get picked off it by the buzzards. So then, when Colburn rolls up on it after the tip off, say he finds it with the keys still in it but when it won’t start finds the battery missing. So he can’t be seen there jumping it, he can’t even be seen to have discovered it by a passing motorist, so definitely no time to boost it off another car. The only thing he can do is chuck another battery in there to get it going. Maybe he disconnects the cables when he’s about to enter the ASY so that the brake lights won’t function and draw attention to it, explaining why they weren’t connected. After planting it, the moron failed to get the battery back because he was preoccupied with camouflaging the vehicle.
[–]now_biff
What say the battery had been stolen out of what appeared to be an abandoned SUV on the side of the road. That’s a fairly common thing to happen to dumped cars no question, Things get picked off it by the buzzards. So then, when Colburn rolls up on it after the tip off, say he finds it with the keys still in it but when it won’t start finds the battery missing. So he can’t be seen there jumping it, he can’t even be seen to have discovered it by a passing motorist, so definitely no time to boost it off another car. The only thing he can do is chuck another battery in there to get it going. Maybe he disconnects the cables when he’s about to enter the ASY so that the brake lights won’t function and draw attention to it, explaining why they weren’t connected. After planting it, the moron failed to get the battery back because he was preoccupied with camouflaging the vehicle.
[-] magiclougie
A replacement battery was needed because the RAV battery was dead or missing. If the key had been left in the ignition, that would explain the dead battery.
On 11/4, out of quick necessity, Andy put in a battery from MTSO's maintenance garage or undersheriff Hermann's salvage yard so that the RAV could be driven from the turnaround to ASY. He had to dispose of Teresa set of keys after the RAV was driven to ASY because of the risk for his DNA being detected on them (they couldn't scrub her entire key chain of DNA without looking it suspicious, but they took the chance with the valet key and planting Steven's DNA on the single scrubbed key).
Around 8 PM on 11/4, as he left for Crivitz, Chuck spotted headlights in the area in the pit where Colborn was planting the RAV. Chuck called Steven, who, along with Bobby, drove down into the pit to check it out, at which time Colborn had to abort his mission and leave the replacement battery in the RAV. He had removed one of the cables but hadn't gotten to the second cable when Steven and Bobby came driving into the pit.
On 11/4, out of quick necessity, Andy put in a battery from MTSO's maintenance garage or undersheriff Hermann's salvage yard so that the RAV could be driven from the turnaround to ASY. He had to dispose of Teresa set of keys after the RAV was driven to ASY because of the risk for his DNA being detected on them (they couldn't scrub her entire key chain of DNA without looking it suspicious, but they took the chance with the valet key and planting Steven's DNA on the single scrubbed key).
Around 8 PM on 11/4, as he left for Crivitz, Chuck spotted headlights in the area in the pit where Colborn was planting the RAV. Chuck called Steven, who, along with Bobby, drove down into the pit to check it out, at which time Colborn had to abort his mission and leave the replacement battery in the RAV. He had removed one of the cables but hadn't gotten to the second cable when Steven and Bobby came driving into the pit.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer[S]
I'm sure that SOB planted the car.
The car was seen parked along 147 the evening the 31st and the day of 3rd & 4th. I a person didn't shut a door all the way it's battery would die of the course of 4.5 days.
I forgot to add leaving the key in the on or acc position will drain a battery fast and that's something I learned the hard way...lol.
The car was seen parked along 147 the evening the 31st and the day of 3rd & 4th. I a person didn't shut a door all the way it's battery would die of the course of 4.5 days.
I forgot to add leaving the key in the on or acc position will drain a battery fast and that's something I learned the hard way...lol.
[–]_jcr_
I still think the blood was planted after the car was placed on ASY. All of the blood is located on the side of the car that was accessible in the location it was parked, except for the blood on the ignition area. And, wouldn't you know it, there are flakes on the floor around that area. To me, that sounds like it was hard to reach and some dried flakes dropped when the planter was trying to reach the ignition area from the passenger side. Plus I think the location and shape of the blood around the ignition is above BoD and ST's intelligence level.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer[S]
I believe she's just working with what she has relative to the blood. When she able to get access to the RAV4 she will be able to collect larger samples that will allow the source to be proven.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer[S]
I think they just threw in whatever they had laying around and didn't realize a battery can be traced.
I suspect she will include the name in her December filing. She may file sooner but I doubt it.
If I was KZ I'd stick with the December date to push the ruling into when the AG is out. I suspect the AG's Assistant AG Fallon will also be gone come the beginning of the year thereby giving KZ a clean slate.
[–]CuriousMeeee
Who noticed it was the wrong size battery? Someone on here? I can’t remember.
Was that you OP?
[–]CaseFilesReviewer[S]
I believe it was me. I noticed a while back, before I created my new account, but I had only connected to a Jeep using a part's store website. It wasn't until last week that I gained access to the Battery Council International data to do a reverse lookup and find it fit a Crown Vic. Also, to my surprise, it's not use in many vehicles.
The battery is nearly 2" shorter (1.973" to be exact) thereby it would have moved back & forth under the battery mount:
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Exhibit-302-RAV4-Battery-Disconnected.jpg
The last thing TH had done was she got the windshield wipers replaced:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/oph7ry42kv0r695/CARFAX%20Vehicle%20History%20Report%20TH%201999%20TOYOTA%20RAV4_%20JT3HP10V5X7113044.pdf?dl=0
[–]Lord-CATalog
Everyone seems to forget that they were two separate framing jobs happening at the same time: one by the killer and his helper and the other one by the corrupt LE. That's why the evidence seems so distant and with different mo.
[–]SparePattern
I’ve been thinking the same for awhile. I was pretty confident LE didn’t actually murder anyone (but to be honest, with this group I wouldn’t at all be surprised), and figured the real killer would try to independently cover their own tracks, then LE rolls in with their patch job. And that’s why nothing matches up, everything is disjointed, etc. I literally hear Benny Hill music in my head when I think of the chaos simultaneously going on with this sometimes. Obviously none of this is funny but the parallel cover ups, framing, sloppiness is quite something and actually helped both sides get away with it - for awhile anyway...
[–]DrCarlSpackler
There was an effort to disconnect or remove the battery that was aborted after the car was driven in to the ASY.
I have always believed it likely the planting of the Rav was a result of LE's tunnel vision to "spruce up" the evidence to hasten Avery's arrest.
If that battery belonged to a police Interceptor, there would be maintenance logs for the replacement battery that will dramatically narrow down the donor vehicle. Corroborated with the time-line and you have an ever decreasing pool of potential planters.
I think KZ intends to smoke out the planter of the Rav because she has records of the handful of interceptors that might have been the donor.
The Rav was driven in.
Headlights observed.
Witness saw two vehicles.
The Rav was parked too tight not to have driven under it's own power and there was no room or evidence that it was winched from the front.
Therefore the battery was connected on evening of the 4th and the Rav was not towed into the ASY.
This only leaves the planter of the Rav as the only person under the hood on the evening of the 4th near crusher row.
This only leaves the planter of the Rav as the only person under the hood on the evening of the 4th near crusher row.
If the battery is from an Interceptor, it would be missed. The planter risked contaminating the scene at night trying to work on the car under pressure. If the battery was meant to be removed while Chuck and Steve were looking for lights, a person might end up rushing.
And why would Avery give a crap about the battery if he had the key? He would not feel any rush because he lived there and presumably had 5 days to deal with the Rav...if you believe the State's story that Rav never left the ASY. In arguendo, Avery would not incapacitate a car so close to his house if guilty: he would want to move the car of a murdered girl far away, if involved.
If the flyovers were really done to scout out a hiding spot for the Rav, then the dry labbing is to fix the mistake of the rushed job after the fact. KZ believes dry-labbing of the latch-licking/groin rubbing under the hood occurred. The obvious misdirect through controlling the investigation seems calculated to point to Avery despite any articulate reason
It sure looks like the MTSO was omniscient about what and where they would find.
"Pagel and the new girl (Baldwin)..."
The afternoon of the fourth.
The raw footage has never been obtained and the shaky video debatedly shows that the Rav was not there daylight on the fourth.
I think the flyover footage was short-changed by Ken's strategy of using sparse exhibits that were calculated to cast a wide net by omitting any refutable details.
Examples: The typed up call details instead of the Cingular paperwork, the admonishment of Culhane to avoid being too technical for the jury, the one-off EDTA test lacking the detail to meet Daubert et seq, & etc.
The utter lack of specific wrongdoing by Avery left little to refute. Ken's arguments mutated yet always came back to the refrain of "Killer SA" despite conflict. Ken had a talent for keeping specifics vague and using the momentum of the office to lull juries into not questioning the State's conclusionary aspersions.
[–]Fedupwiththelaw
I think it's smart for KZ to not expressly claim the police planted the blood, and to underline it's POSSIBLE that the killer did, as he had access to car, SA's trailer, etc.
BoD doing it is feasible, even if unlikely.
Why go out on a limb and claim the cops did it, just turning people on the fence off who want to believe that cops are inherently good?
BoD doing it is feasible, even if unlikely.
Why go out on a limb and claim the cops did it, just turning people on the fence off who want to believe that cops are inherently good?
The police very well may have (and likely did) plant the blood (they sure used the "destroyed" crotch swabs on the hood latch to great effect).
But by focusing her theory clearly on the killer, she leaves the accusations of police corruption and planting to bubble up to the surface all by themselves.
But by focusing her theory clearly on the killer, she leaves the accusations of police corruption and planting to bubble up to the surface all by themselves.
The whole subtext for police incompetence--or outright corruption--is right there in her argument where she alleges the killer planted the blood:
Best case for the cops with the story as told by KZ? They screwed up the investigation and missed getting who it really was in their zeal to nail SA...and may even have used the killer as their star witness to do so.
Worst case? They strongly suspected, or even outright knew who the real killer was and agreed to work with him to put SA behind bars.
Either way, SA's innocent.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer[S]
Crown Victorias were used by the MTSO before they moved to Chevy Impalas.
[–]JLWhitaker
Do you know when they switched and who would have had access to the older vehicles that were going to be replaced?
What if there was a triple switch? Hey, Charlie, I need a new battery for my car, can I get one from the yard?
It's a stretch, I know. Am just thinking outside the square for why anyone would think this was a smart thing to do. Oh, right. Andy. Never mind.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer[S]
It was right around the time of murder, since their newer cars were Impalas and their older one's Crown Vics.
My guess is the battery was sitting in the county garage after being removed from a car taken out of service.
Wrecked or major mechanical not worth fixing. That's what our county garage does with something come out of service. They park it around back, take it's battery out and store inside, then then pick the car for parts.
Back in 05' the MTSO was cycling out their Crown Vics, replacing them with Chevy Impalas, and if they had a Crown Vic not worth fixing they would have just decommissioned it.
That actually threw me off when I was first looking, since the MTSO's patrol cars in the photo exhibits where Impalas. After I found the battery fit a Crown Vic I once again searched and found media coverage that showed the MTSO's older patrol cars were Crown Vics.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer[S]
Wrecked or major mechanical not worth fixing. That's what our county garage does with something come out of service. They park it around back, take it's battery out and store inside, then then pick the car for parts.
Back in 05' the MTSO was cycling out their Crown Vics, replacing them with Chevy Impalas, and if they had a Crown Vic not worth fixing they would have just decommissioned it.
That actually threw me off when I was first looking, since the MTSO's patrol cars in the photo exhibits where Impalas. After I found the battery fit a Crown Vic I once again searched and found media coverage that showed the MTSO's older patrol cars were Crown Vics.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer[S]
She specifically referenced Crown Vic, so I believe it traced back to the County's Garage as I suspected.
[–]screamcleaning
I just got in from work and have only done a quick scroll through the new info. If I am not mistaken the battery replacement/crown vic battery has been your theory for quite awhile, correct? Love reading your posts and laughed in delight when I saw that one of the major things coming out today was something you had been saying for quite awhile!
[–]CaseFilesReviewer[S]
Replacement yes, but I wasn't able to connect to the Crown Vic until the week before last.
