Former Autotrader receptionist Dawn Pliszka did not respond or declined to participate in
Making A Murderer Part 2 (image above).
Angela Schuster was the manager at Autotrader's office in Hales Corners, near Milwaukee, where from October 2004 to November 2005 Dawn was the receptionist and Teresa Halbach was one of six (per Dawn) to eight (per Angela) photographers.
Was the entire Autotrader photography services program an undercover operation (and was this program unique to Wisconsin)?
Dawn handled about six photographers for Autotrader in 2005 (per her testimony). Her duties included answering incoming phone calls, inputing customer information into the computer system, generating reports and faxing appointment sheets to photographers, and contacting photographers for follow up.
Teresa started working for Autotrader shortly after Dawn started, per Dawn's testimony (Teresa started on 10/8/2004, per Angela's DCI interview). Dawn mentioned an Autotrader guy, Ronald Schicker, had helped Teresa Halbach (Exhibit 102,
page 7, paragraph 2).
Also per Dawn's testimony, she was no longer working for Autotrader by the time of Steven Avery's trial in February 2007.
Dawn never met Teresa in person. Angela met Teresa in person only once.
For five months, Kathy Willeford was Autotrader's photographer for the counties of Manitowoc and Sheboygan before Teresa Halbach took over in May 2005 (CASO
page 331).
Angela knew Kathy Willeford worked for the state of Wisconsin.
Was the WI-DOJ running an undercover surveillance operation out of Autotrader, and was Angela Schuster aware of the operation?
Key State witness Dawn Pliszka is a liar.
Q. At
or about 8:12 a.m., do you recall receiving a call that day?
A. Yes, I do. It
was from a man. He said that he wanted the photographer who had been out there
before.
Q. This man said that he wanted the photographer who had been out there before; did he identify by name that person?
A. No, he did not.
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Jury-Trial-Transcript-Day-2-2007Feb13.pdf#page=76
The writing on the Sikikey letter very much resembles Dawn Pliszka's handwriting.
Sikikey Letter written by Dawn Pliszka of Autotrader?
20 DIRECT EXAMINATION
21 BY ATTORNEY KRATZ:
22
Q. Ms Pliszka, I want to direct your attention to
23 the fall of 2005 and ask if you can tell the jury
24 how you were employed at that time?
25 A.
I was a receptionist at Auto Trader.
1 Q. And what were your duties as a receptionist?
2 A. I sent out the photography leads. I took
3 incoming phone calls. Sent out t-shirts. Mailed
4 out catalogs.
5
Q. As part of that employment, did you have the
6 privilege of knowing a young woman named Teresa
7 Halbach?
8 A. Yes, I did.
9 Q. Could you tell the jury, please, how you knew Ms
10 Halbach?
11
A. She was one of our photographers. She started
12 just a little after I did, so we were fairly
13 close.
14 Q. Ms Pliszka,
I'm going to direct your attention,
15 specifically, to October 31st of 2005, ask if you
16 were working on that day?
17 A. Yes, I was.
18 Q. Do you remember about what time you started work?
19 A. I started at 7:00.
20 Q. Seven in the morning?
21 A. Mm-hmm. Yes.
22
Q. At or about 8:12 a.m., do you recall receiving a
23 call that day?
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. And could you tell the jury about that call,
1 please.
2
A. It was from a man. He said that he wanted the
3 photographer who had been out there before. He
4 was selling a mini van and he needed her to take
5 photos.
6 Q. Did this man identify what name the photography
7 job would be under?
8
A. I couldn't quite make him out because he was very
9 hard to understand. The closest I got was the
10 initial B. Janda.
11
Q. This man said that he wanted the photographer who
12 had been out there before; did he identify by
13 name that person?
14 A. No, he did not.
15 Q. Did he provide you an address where he wanted
16 this photo to be taken?
17 A. Yes, he did.
18 Q. Do you remember what that was?
19 A. I don't remember the exact number, but it was
20 something B Avery Road.
21 Q. If I showed you a document from that morning,
22 would that help refresh your recollection of
23 that?
24 A. Yes.
Dawn is associated with Marinette County Deputy Barry Degnitz (see images above from truepeoplesearch.com).
Degnitz pulled over Bryan and Brendan Dassey in Steven Avery's Pontiac Grand Am in Crivitz on November 6, 2005, and then he seized and impounded the vehicle (the vehicle had Steven Avery's blood in it from when he reopened a cut on his finger the evening of November 3rd).
Dawn and Barry lived together at 600 S Main Street, Apartment A, in the town of West Bend, in Washington County, Wisconsin, from 1993-1994 (they both lived in West Bend from at least 1991).
Dawn and Barry then both lived in Newburg, Wisconsin, from 1994-2000, at which time Dawn moved to the Milwaukee area. Barry moved to Mauston, Wisconsin in 1997, and then he moved to Marinette County in 1998, where he is a sheriff's deputy.
Marinette County, Wisconsin, is the location of the Avery's cabin (town of Crivitz).
Barry Degnitz, who was born in West Bend, Wisconsin, which is in Washington County, married Stacie Wohlt in Washington County on September 24, 1994. The have one child, a daughter. [
Source]
Dawn, whose maiden name is Pliszka, appears to have never been married. She has a son who was born in 1995 or 1996.
On November 6, 2005, Brendan and his brother Bryan were driving around the town of Crivitz in the Pontiac Grand Am when they were stopped by Deputy Degnitz. Deputy Degnitz then called Anthony O'Neill, Todd Baldwin and Kim Skorlinski to come to the scene and question the Dassey brothers. When the others arrived to join O'Neill, including Department of Criminal Investigation Agent Skorlinsk, Brendan was brought into O'Neill's police cruiser, and his questioning began. (It is not at all clear where Bryan was.) O'Neill was not joined by Deputy Degnitz, who stayed in or around his own vehicle as he called Witts Towing to coordinate having Steven Avery's Grand Am brought in for examination. All of this can be found in O'Neill's written report.
Excerpts from Degnitz's Marinette County Sheriff's Department report:
ON 11/06/05, I, DEPUTY BARRY DEGNITZ, WAS AT PARKWAY ROAD AND HIGHLINE LANE, IN THE TOWN OF STEPHENSON, MARINETTE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. I WAS TO LOOK FOR A BLUE,1996 PONTIAC GRANDAM 2-DOOR.
WITT ARRIVED TO TOW THE VEHICLE. I FOLLOWED THE TOW TO THE MARINETTE COUNTY IMPOUND. I SECURED THE VEHICLE IN THE THE IMPOUND. I DISCONNECTED THE BATTERY CABLE. I SEALED THE DOORS, TRUNK AND HOOD OF THE VEHICLE WITH EVIDENCE TAPE.
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Marinette-Co-SD-Deputy-Barry-Degnitz-Supplemental-Report_redacted.pdf
Marinette County Deputy O'Neill's Testimony at Dassey's Trial
And you testified earlier that you had reviewed some of your notes, uh, to help refresh your
memory for purposes of testifying?
The transcript and the audio recordings I did.
Okay. I thought that -- I thought you said your notes.
I probably did, but it was a transcript and the audio files. I don't recall that I actually looked at the
report, although I had a copy of it in my folder.
Did you look at any notes that you made of your activities, which you would ordinarily make, to
help you prepare reports, for example?
Not recently, no.
Would those notes indicate when you learned that Skorlinski had obtained the search warrant for
the Pontiac automobile?
I'd have to review the reports.
The report or your notes?
I don't have notes. There's a report that I produced.
Now, before you the one who actually stopped the Pontiac automobile?
No, I'm not.
Do you know who did?
I believe Deputy Degnitz.
Okay. And what time was that?
COURT REPORTER: Could you spell his last name, please?
THE WITNESS: D-e-g-n-i-t-z. Before noon.
(By Attorney Edelstein)
Can you be more specific?
I got there -- I think I re -- put down, like, 11:50, so shortly before that. We were only maybe half a
mile away.
Okay. So if -- if your report says at about 11:55 a.m. you and Baldwin, uh, met with Degnitz
on Parkway, that would-- you wouldn't take issue with that?
After he made the stop we did. I don't -- I don't know.
Okay. Had he already stopped the Pontiac?
Yes.
And who's the one that directed him to stop the Pontiac?
I believe, uh, one of the officers.
Either myself, Detective Baldwin, or Agent Skorlinski.
And you don't remember if you were the one who --
This -- this is a deputy within your department; right?
Yes.
And you can't tell us who -- whether you have an independent memory of ling one of your own
deputies in your department to stop a vehicle where you have a search warrant?
ATTORNEY FALLON: Objection. Relevance.
THE COURT: I -- I'm going to sustain that objection. Move on.
(By Attorney Edelstein)
So to the best of your recollection, was the vehicle stopped by the time you got there?
Yes.
And I believe you testified that you and Baldwin took Brendan into your vehicle; right?
We asked him if he would talk to us in my vehicle.
He said, yes.
What happened to his brother?
He went and talked to Agent Skorlinski in his vehicle.
Was it just Skorlinski over in his car?
I think Skorlinski also had a partner. I -- Her name escapes me. I only met her once.
Is that the one referred to in your report as Deb, paren, unsure last name?
I believe so. Yes.
http://jenniferjslate.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/DasseyTrial_Day4_4.19.07.pdf
If called to testify, Dawn Pliszka would testify that on October 31, 2005 she received a phone call from Steven Avery at approximately 8:12 a.m., at which time Avery requested that, quote, the same girl that had been out here before, end quote, come to his property to take photos of a van he had for sale. Pliszka would further state that Avery made the appointment under the name, quote, B. Janda, end quote, and that Pliszka left a voicemail for Teresa Halbach at 9:46 a.m. asking if she could make the appointment.
If called to testify, Dawn Pliszka would further testify that at 2:27 p.m. she did speak with Teresa Halbach on Teresa's cell phone at which time Ms. Halbach indicated that she was, quote, on her way, end quote, to the Avery property from her previous appointment. That is the entirety of that stipulation. It will be marked as Exhibit 205?
http://jenniferjslate.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/DasseyTrial_Day4_4.19.07.pdf
Manitowoc County Circuit Judge Patrick Willis would not allow Dawn Pliszka, an Autotrader receptionist at the time, to testify about an alleged previous encounter that Teresa had with Steven Avery.
"She had stated to me that he had come out in a towel," Pliszka said while the jury was outside the courtroom. "I just said, Really?' and then she said, Yeah,' and laughed and said kinda Ew.' "
Willis said he could not allow the testimony because the date wasn't clear and few details were known about the alleged encounter.
But Pliszka did testify before the jury that Avery called her on October 31, 2005, to request the photographer who had been out to the property previously. Schuster said she talked to Halbach by phone around 11 a.m. that day to tell her of the appointment at the Avery property.
https://madison.com/news/local/victim-s-relative-offers-testimony-in-avery-trial/article_6e211e33-cd39-5787-9283-6d33b6314888.html
Teresa Halbach's landline records obtained and...
By seekingtruthforgood, MakingaMurderer
The records oddly don't include any confirmation whatsoever that Teresa ever called Autotrader or ever faxed one single document to Autotrader - within the timeframe of the provided records. In fact, the long distance calls ended with records during September.
I think these are records recovered from Teresa's home and office. I don't think the state ever obtained her landline records...
Maybe she usually faxed AutoTrader from her business? Seems that could be the case but she can't be talking to Angela from her landline at the same time she is sending a fax from somewhere else... so, something is not lining up.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/9ftx3e/teresa_halbachs_landline_records_obtained_and/
Autotrader's numbers at the time were:
The numbers on the Autotrader magazine cover
414-425-8675
877-425-7653
Autotrader called Teresa from two other 414 numbers (per Teresa's AT&T records)
414-425-8736
414-425-8738
Autotrader's fax
414-428-8743
There is no record of Teresa ever calling any of Autotrader's numbers.
Did Teresa use a burner phone to call Dawn, perhaps the
Audiovox cellphone found near the turnaround?
Or did Dawn straight up lie about having a phone conversation with Teresa on October 31, 2005? We know she lied about Teresa calling her. The call at 2:27 PM from 414-425-8712- was an
incoming call to Teresa (this call is not listed in the 2017 report of Teresa's Cingular/AT&T cell phone records).
Dawn Pliszka's Testimony
Q. And what kind of relationship did you have with
6 Teresa; in other words,
did you and Ms Halbach
7 have occasion to discuss matters of a more
8 personal nature?
9 A. Yes, we did.
10 Q. During the course of those discussions,
did Ms
11 Halbach ever describe for you a contact or
12 incident that she had with the defendant, Steven
13 Avery?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Could you describe, first of all, the words that
16 she used and then we will describe the
17 circumstances surrounding that. So first tell us
18 what she told you.
19
A. After she was out there, around October 10th, it
20 was like about a week or so after that, she had
21 stated to me that he had come out in a towel.
22 Q. He meaning whom?
23 A. Steven Avery.
24 Q. Had come out where?
25 A. She didn't specify, she just said that he had
61
1 come out, just in a towel.
2 Q. All right. Did Ms Halbach describe for you
3 anything else about that, any other details about
4 seeing Mr. Avery in a towel?
5
A. The only -- I just said, really, and she said,
6 yeah, and she said, yeah, and she laughed and
7 just said kind of, ewww, you know.
8 Q. Okay. You said kind of what?
9 A. Ewww.
10 Q. Ewww.
11 A. Yeah, just that.
12 Q. I guess not in a positive way?
13 A. Not in a positive way, no.
14 Q. Did Ms Halbach -- or was she seeming to describe
15 a specific event; in other words, was she
16 remembering that event when she was describing it
17 for you?
18 A. Yes.
19 ATTORNEY KRATZ: At least as far as my
20 offer of proof, the rest is argument. I don't have
21 anything further from Ms Pliszka for this offer of
22 proof.
23 THE COURT: Mr. Strang.
24 CROSS-EXAMINATION
25 BY ATTORNEY STRANG:
Q. Hi. Do you think this was a week or more after
2 October 10th?
3 A. Yes, that I talked to her. I don't know when the
4 incident exactly was.
5 Q. Okay. But you're probably talking to Teresa
6 Halbach October 17, or some time shortly after
7 that?
8 A. Mm-hmm. Yes.
9 Q. She did not say that this had happened on October
10 10 or any specific date?
11 A. She did not specify the date, no.
12 Q. She didn't call you to tell you about this
13 incident?
14
A. Not specifically, no, it just came up in
15 conversation.
16 Q. You were chitty chatting with her?
17 A. Yeah. Mm-hmm.
18 Q. And the reaction was ewww?
19 A. Yeah, it was unfavorable.
20 Q. Yeah. And then she sort of laughed it off?
21 A. Right.
22 Q. This was 10 -- 10, 15 seconds of conversation?
23 A. I would say, yes.
24 Q. How long was the phone call, roughly?
25 A. Altogether, probably a couple minutes at that
63
1 time.
2 Q. What sorts of other subjects did you two cover in
3 that conversation?
4 A. Probably just work related. I don't really
5 remember all the details of the conversation. I
6 just remember her saying that.
7 Q. Do you remember whether she called you or you
8 called her?
9 A. I think that time she called me, probably she had
10 a question on one of her photos, I think.
11 Q. Okay. So she had some more immediate work
12 purpose for the call?
13 A. Mm-hmm. Yes.
14 Q. And the two of you got sort of chatting and this
15 is one of the things she brought up?
16 A. Right.
17 Q. She did not give you any sense of time on when
18 this had occurred?
19 A. No, she did not.
20 ATTORNEY STRANG: Okay. Thanks. That's
21 all I have.
22 ATTORNEY KRATZ: Judge, one follow up.
23 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
24 BY ATTORNEY KRATZ:
25 Q. In the interim, that is, between October 10th and
64
1 October 17th, or really around that period of
2 time,
would you have these kinds of conversations
3 often with Teresa, personal chit chatty
4 conversations?
5 A. Pretty much every time she called in. I talked
6 to her a couple times a week because I sent out
7 the photo leads and everything, so we talked
8 quite a bit.
9 ATTORNEY KRATZ: That's all I have. If we
10 could excuse Ms Pliszka, Judge, then I'm prepared to
11 make my argument.
12 THE COURT: All right. I just have a
13 couple of follow up questions.
14 EXAMINATION
15 BY THE COURT:
16 Q. You said that the conversation took place a week
17 or so after October 10th?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And is it your understanding that October 10th is
20 the day that she was describing that this
21 happened?
22 A. I really can't say for sure.
23 Q. All right. So you don't know if she was talking
24 about a visit to Mr. Avery's property on October
25 10th or at some previous unspecified visit?
65
1 A. Yeah, I would not know that for sure.
2 Q. And do you remember how the comment -- or what
3 prompted the comment, what background
4 conversation led up to it?
5 A. I don't really remember, no. I just remember --
6 We used to talk about different things that had
7 happened during our day that were unusual, or
8 funny, or different customers and things like
9 that, so.
10 THE COURT: All right. You are excused
11 from the courtroom for a few minutes. Mr. Kratz.
13 THE CLERK: Raise your right hand.
14 DAWN PLISZKA, called as a witness
15 herein, having been first duly sworn, was
16 examined and testified as follows:
17 THE CLERK: Please be seated. Please state
18 your name and spell your last name for the record.
19 THE WITNESS: Dawn Pliszka, P-l-i-s-z-k-a.
20 DIRECT EXAMINATION
21 BY ATTORNEY KRATZ:
22 Q. Ms Pliszka, I want to direct your attention to
23 the fall of 2005 and ask if you can tell the jury
24 how you were employed at that time?
25 A. I was a receptionist at Auto Trader.
1 Q. And what were your duties as a receptionist?
2 A. I sent out the photography leads. I took
3 incoming phone calls. Sent out t-shirts. Mailed
4 out catalogs.
5 Q. As part of that employment, did you have the
6 privilege of knowing a young woman named Teresa
7 Halbach?
8 A. Yes, I did.
9 Q. Could you tell the jury, please, how you knew Ms
10 Halbach?
11 A. She was one of our photographers. She started
12 just a little after I did, so we were fairly
13 close.
14 Q. Ms Pliszka, I'm going to direct your attention,
15 specifically, to October 31st of 2005, ask if you
16 were working on that day?
17 A. Yes, I was.
18
Q. Do you remember about what time you started work?
19 A. I started at 7:00.
20 Q. Seven in the morning?
21 A. Mm-hmm. Yes.
22 Q. At or about 8:12 a.m., do you recall receiving a
23 call that day?
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. And could you tell the jury about that call,
76
1 please.
2
A. It was from a man. He said that he wanted the
3 photographer who had been out there before. He
4 was selling a mini van and he needed her to take
5 photos.
6 Q. Did this man identify what name the photography
7 job would be under?
8
A. I couldn't quite make him out because he was very
9 hard to understand. The closest I got was the
10 initial B. Janda.
11 Q. This man said that he wanted the photographer who
12 had been out there before; did he identify by
13 name that person?
14 A. No, he did not.
15 Q. Did he provide you an address where he wanted
16 this photo to be taken?
17 A. Yes, he did.
18
Q. Do you remember what that was?
19 A. I don't remember the exact number, but it was
20 something B Avery Road.
21 Q. If I showed you a document from that morning,
22 would that help refresh your recollection of
23 that?
24 A. Yes.
25 ATTORNEY KRATZ: Exhibit 17, Janet, do you
77
1 have that?
2 Q. (By Attorney Kratz)~ I have now handed you what
3 has been marked for identification as
Exhibit
4 No. 17. Tell the jury, first of all, what is
5 that?
6
A. This is a photo shoot lead. It's for a same day
7 appointment, which we don't normally do. But if
8 the photographer is able to, we could have
9 written them up and sent them to them.
10 Q. Whose handwriting is on that form?
11 A. That's mine.
12 Q. Would that form have been filled out at the same
13 time that you received this call from this
14 person?
15 A. It was actually filled out later on, after I had
16 left a message for Teresa to see if she could
17 make it out there that day.
18 Q. But does that sheet help refresh your
19 recollection as to the information provided by
20 this man?
21 A. Yes.
22
Q. What was the address that was given for the photo
23 shoot?
24 A. 12930A Avery Road.
25 Q. Now, when this man said that he -- Let me start
78
1 again.
Remind me of the language, the specific
2 language the man used in requesting the
3 photographer?
4 A. He had wanted the photographer that had been out
5 there before.
6 Q. Did he say why he wanted that same photographer?
7 A. Because he had a mini van for sale.
8 Q. Was a phone number provided?
9 A. Yes, it was.
10 Q. Could you tell us what that phone number was,
11 please.
12 A. It is 920-755-8715.
13 Q. Now, did you know the district or the area from
14 whom this call had come; in other words, what
15 photographer you were going to assign to do this
16 shoot?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. How did you know that?
19 A. They were assigned by location. When you would
20 type it in the system, it would automatically pop
21 up the photographer's next available date.
22 Q. Who was the photographer that had that district?
23 A. Teresa Halbach.
24 Q. I think that you had said that same day
25 appointments were unusual; is that right?
79
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Can you tell the jury about that, please.
3 A. Normally, we had a 24 hour notice for photos, but
4 sometimes if someone wanted to make a deadline
5 and the photographer was in the area, we would
6 leave a message for them and then they would go
7 out to that person's residence, if they could
8 make it.
9 Q. Ms Pliszka, I'm now going to direct your
10 attention to approximately 9:46 a.m. and ask if
11 you tried to call Teresa Halbach at that time?
12 A. Yes, I did.
13 Q. Could you tell the jury about that call, please.
14 A. I wasn't able to get a hold of her, so I left her
15 a message saying that someone said -- I'm sorry
16 -- that she had been out there before. I
17 couldn't find a record of him in the system, but
18 if she could make it today, that would be fine,
19 otherwise I had scheduled it for the following
20 Monday, which would have been her next available
21 appointment.
22 Q. Were you notified, Ms Pliszka, any time later
23 that day that Ms Halbach was able to make that
24 appointment?
25 A. When I came back from lunch, there was a note
80
1 from Angie Schuster that -- it was said that she
2 had wanted me to fill out one of these lead
3 sheets and fax it to her because she would be
4 able to make it that same day.
5 Q. She, meaning Ms Halbach?
6 A. Ms Halbach, yes.
7
Q. Finally, Ms Pliszka, were you able to and did
8 you, in fact, speak with Teresa Halbach later
9 that day?
10 A. Yes, she called me at 2:27 and we talked --
11 Q. Who?
12 A. Teresa. Called me at 2:27 and we talked for a
13 little while and she said, yeah, I'm able to go
14 get that photo. By the way, it was the Avery
15 brothers and I'm on my way out there right now.
16 Q. So 2:27 p.m. she told you she was on her way to
17 the Avery property?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Let me ask you this,
Ms Pliszka, how do you
20 remember that call?
21 A. I remember because I looked at the time, because
22 she didn't normally work, I think, past 1:00 and
23 I thought it was kind of late for her to be going
24 out there. So I happened to look at the clock at
25 that time, so.
81
1 Q. All right.
Just as an aside, do you remember
2 what else you guys talked about at that time?
3 A. She needed UPS labels and then I was telling her
4 about my son going trick or treating.
5 Q. So you remember that being Halloween?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Finally, Ms Pliszka, after that call, after you
8 hung up and concluded that call with Teresa, did
9 you ever have occasion to talk with her again?
10 A. We tried to get a hold of her, on I think
11 Thursday morning, but we weren't able to.
12 Q. Let me ask that again, did you ever talk to
13 Teresa Halbach again after that time?
14 A. No, I did not.
15 ATTORNEY KRATZ: I would move the admission
16 of Exhibit 17, Judge, and that's all the questions I
17 have for this witness.
18 THE COURT: Any objection to the exhibit?
19 ATTORNEY BUTING: No objection.
20 THE COURT: Exhibit 17 is admitted. Who
21 will be doing cross?
22 ATTORNEY BUTING: I will, Judge.
23 THE COURT: Mr. Buting.
24 CROSS-EXAMINATION
25 BY ATTORNEY BUTING:
82
1 Q. Good morning.
2 A. Good morning.
3 Q. Is it Ms Pliszka?
4 A. Pliszka.
5 Q. Pliszka, okay.
6 ATTORNEY BUTING: Judge, could you maybe
7 explain to the jury that it's your request that we
8 wear these mikes when we move around?
9 THE COURT: That's right, the attorneys who
10 stand, we require the attorneys to use these mikes
11 so everybody can hear.
12 ATTORNEY BUTING: So forgive me if I fumble
13 with them a little bit.
14 Q. (By Attorney Buting)~ All right. Now, you still
15 have Exhibit 17 up in front of you, do you not?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. All right. Now, I will refer to that in just a
18 minute.
But, you mentioned that your duties are
19 answering incoming phone calls?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Calling out to photographers and assignments?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Also faxing out these appointment sheets?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. You actually prepare them sometimes yourself,
83
1 too?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And how many photographers -- And you work in the
4 Hales Corners office, right?
5 A. I'm no longer employed there.
6 Q. I'm sorry, back in October of 2005 --
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. -- you were --
Will you wait till I answer --
9 finish the question so that the reporter is not
10 tripping over us here. October of 2005, you
11 worked in Hales Corners?
12 A. Yes.
13
Q. And how many photographers did you deal with at
14 that time, around the state?
15 A. Probably around six.
16 Q. Okay. And most of your communication with them
17 was by email, or fax, or phone?
18 A. Mostly by fax and phone.
19 Q. Mostly fax and phone, okay.
20 A. Yes.
21
Q. In fact, did you ever meet Teresa Halbach?
22 A. No, I did not.
23 Q. You never met her face to face at all?
24 A. No.
25
Q. So your relationship with her, when you say you
84
1 were close, it was just from phone conversations?
2 A. From phone conversations, yes.
3 Q. And these phone conversations were usually just a
4 couple of minutes or so as you would -- because
5 you had other duties, other calls coming in and
6 all of that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. So you didn't really know much,
9 personally, about her, other than what would be
10 transmitted in these very brief phone calls?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. All right. Now, this phone call that you got on
13 October 31st, you knew the name -- you recognized
14 the name Janda, J-a-n-d-a, right?
15 A. That's what I could make out --
16 Q. Okay.
17 A. -- from what he had said.
18
Q. And in fact, you know, then the man gave you the
19 address and it was on Avery Road, right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And you knew that the Jandas and the Averys were
22 basically the same people, same area, right?
23 A. No, I did not.
24 Q. You didn't?
25 A. No.
85
1 Q. Were you interviewed by an Investigator Wiegert
2 of the Calumet County Sheriff's Department about
3 this incident?
4 A. I'm not sure. I believe so.
5 Q. Okay. Let's say at about 8:00 or 9:00 on
6 November 3rd, that would be Thursday, do you
7 remember getting a call from an investigator at
8 the Sheriff's Department?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Yes?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And he asked you some questions of what you knew
13 about this phone call on the 31st of October?
14 A. Yes.
15
Q. And did you tell him that you knew that the
16 Jandas are basically the Avery brothers, that you
17 have done -- they have done work for them before,
18 but does not know why they give the name B.
19 Janda; did you tell him that?
20 A. No, I did not.
21
Q. So if he wrote that in his report, he was just
22 making it up?
23 A. I did not know that it was -- she told me --
24 Teresa told me it was the Avery brothers. At the
25 time I took the call, I had no idea who it was.
86
1 Q. Okay. Exhibit 17, in front of you there, has an
2 account number, right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. That's the Avery's account, isn't it?
5 A. I believe that was one that I had just created
6 for this lead.
7 Q. So you created this as a whole new account?
8 A. Because I couldn't find it in the records. I
9 checked by phone number and the last name and I
10 couldn't find the person in there -- or him in
11 there.
12 Q. I'm going to show you Exhibit 19, see if maybe
13 this refreshes your recollection a little bit.
14
Is that one of the appointment sheets that you,
15 or somebody in your office, prepares and faxes to
16 the photographers?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And at the very, very top, there's a little code
19 that says run by?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And it says D. Plisz -- D. P-l-i-s-z-k, (sic)
22 that would be you, right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. So you actually ran this report yourself?
25 A. Yes.
87
1 Q. On --In this particular instance, September 19th,
2 2005, right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And the very first name listed there is Tom
5 Janda, is it not?
6 A. Yes, it is.
7 Q. And the address there, would you read that off,
8 please?
9 A. It's -- I'm sorry I can't see.
10 Q. I'm sorry.
11 A. 12930A Avery Road.
12 Q. Is that the same address that you have here on
13 Exhibit 17, the photo shoot that you filled out
14 on October 31st?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. So, on October 31st, you did, in fact, know -- or
17 those were records that you had taken an
18 appointment for the Jandas on a prior date?
19 A. That's not necessarily from me. There were three
20 or four of us that would run appointment photos.
21 It would depend. I ran the reports in the
22 morning. I didn't necessarily read them
23 thoroughly; I just would fax them out to the
24 photographer.
25 Q. (By Attorney Buting)~ If you would look at the
88
1 screen right there; I'm showing you a zoomed in
2 picture of this
Exhibit 19. The date is
3 September 19 of 2005, right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q
. And that is -- It does indicate that you ran
6 that?
7 A. I ran the report, but that does not mean that I
8 had taken the original lead.
9 Q. Sure. But you ran the report and the report
10 included Tom Janda, the very first one, very same
11 phone number, very same address, that you have in
12 front of you on the October 31st exhibit,
13 correct?
14 A. No, the phone number is different.
15 Q. All right. But the address is the same?
16 A. Yes, but I didn't search by address in the
17 system.
18 Q. You just searched by phone?
19 A. Right, because we had tried to get people off the
20 phone as quickly as possible. So if I couldn't
21 find it by phone number and last name, and for
22 some reason it didn't come up in the system.
23 Q. For some reason, but it should have because you
24 did have a record of Janda's, correct?
25 A. From what that is, yes.
89
1
Q. Okay. And I realize it's been a long time, so
2 you may not remember everything as well 15 months
3 later, but the record speaks for itself.
4 ATTORNEY KRATZ: I'm going to object to
5 this, it's argumentative. It says Tom Janda, not B.
6 Janda, not the phone number. She's answered this.
7 It's argumentative.
8 THE COURT: I don't know if it's
9 argumentative, but the last thing the attorney said
10 was a statement, not a question.
11 ATTORNEY BUTING: I will move on, Judge,
12 sorry.
13 Q. (By Attorney Buting)~ Now, you said that the same
14 day appointments that would be called in, were
15 unusual?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Not that unusual, though, they happened, right?
18 A. Yes, they did.
19 Q. You have a form that's made for that purpose?
20 A. Or for reshoots, if someone had already had a
21 photo, the same --
22
Q. So particularly repeat customers who knew the
23 photographer's route, knew what day they would be
24 in the area; those are the kind of people that
25 would call the same day. They knew they could
90
1 still get in before the deadline?
2 A. Sometimes. Sometimes people just weren't aware
3 of the deadlines and they would see. We could
4 have also ran it for a week, without a photo, and
5 just extended his ad as well.
6
Q. Okay. So, when you got this phone call, though,
7 that morning, there was nothing that unusual
8 about it, about getting this call from this
9 gentleman saying he wanted a photograph taken of
10 the car, was there?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Okay. And you just followed your regular
13 routine, which is to call, in this case Teresa,
14 leave a message with the name, address, see if
15 she was available, right?
16 A. I left the name and the phone number and the
17 addresses, yeah; if she could make it that would
18 be great, if not, we could always call the
19 customer back and he was scheduled for the next
20 week after.
21 Q. And that's something that she had done before,
22 right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. You had done same day ones with her, right?
25 A. Yes.
91
1
Q. And in your experience, it also would not be
2 unusual that the person calling may not be the
3 person who actually owned and selling the
4 vehicle, right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. In fact, that very day, October 31st, there was a
7 gentleman that called in, left the name, Sippel,
8 I believe; does that ring a bell?
9 A. No, it does not.
10 Q. Well, you sent out --
11 ATTORNEY BUTING: Let me do this, let me
12 mark this as an exhibit.
13 (Exhibit No. 20 marked for identification.)
14 Q. (By Attorney Buting)~ Can you identify
Exhibit 20
15 for us, please.
16 A. This is one of the leads that would have printed
17 because it was done before 24 hours. That would
18 have been one of her normally scheduled leads for
19 the day of the 31st.
20 Q. Okay. And that was run by you?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Once again.
23 (Exhibit No. 21 marked for identification.)
24 Q. And could you exhibit -- or identify Exhibit 21
25 also, please?
92
1 A. That is also another lead; it appears to be the
2 29th of October.
3 Q. And at the very top there is a fax date and time;
4 do you see that?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. What is it?
7 A. It says 10/31, 2005, 0093 (sic).
8 Q. So like 12:13 a.m.?
9 A. Yes, this appears -- I think this is from Teresa
10 because it says rescheduled for Monday.
11 Q. Right. The handwriting. Let me just put these
12 up on the screen for a minute, so we know what
13 we're talking about. Exhibit 20 is the report
14 that you did -- that you ran at 7:08 a.m. on
15 Monday, October 31st, right?
16 A. Yes.
17
Q. And that's what you would have then faxed to
18 Teresa for her schedule for the day, right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And that only has one appointment on it, a
21 Mr. George Zipperer, right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. But, in fact, you knew she had more than one
24 appointment on that day, right?
25 A. Yes.
93
1 Q. And
Exhibit No. 21, which I'm showing you now, is
2 the report that you indicated she faxed on
3 October 31st at 0013 hours, right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And on that, this is actually an appointment
6 scheduled for a previous day, Saturday, the 29th,
7 I think, right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. On that, she wrote another appointment that was
10 to be rescheduled for Monday, right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And the name of that individual, can you read --
13 I don't know if you can read the first name, but
14 the last name is Sippel, right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. So I have one other one I want to show you. I
17 haven't marked this yet, but maybe you can tell
18 me from looking at this; do you know what kind of
19 a form this is?
20
A. This is the actual lead form that prints along
21 with their schedule.
22 Q. So this is something that you prepare?
23 A. Yes, or I edit it.
24 ATTORNEY BUTING: I better mark this
25 actually.
94
1 (Exhibit No. 22 marked for identification.)
2 Q. And this is
Exhibit 22?
3
A. Yes. This was the one I had originally done.
4 And I believe I changed it for the Monday, the
5 same day appointment for the 31st. I was
6 originally going to schedule it for the following
7 week.
8 Q. Okay. But what's the difference between
9 Exhibit 22 and Exhibit 17?
10 A. She -- That wouldn't print until the next day.
11 This one here, Exhibit 22, would not have printed
12 until Tuesday.
13 Q. Okay.
14 A. Because that's why we usually don't do same day
15 appointments, because they don't print until the
16 following day.
17 Q. Okay. So by print, you mean enter the
18 information in your computer and do what? You
19 fax within --
that's not what you fax to the
20 photographers usually, is it?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. It is?
23 A. It is, yes.
24 Q. Okay.
25 A. They got that actually, as well too, so they
95
1 could put information on there pertaining to the
2 ad and then photo number and everything so it
3 would match up.
4 Q. Okay. And this, specifically, is for B. Janda,
5 right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Is that the address, 12930A Avery Road?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. It's got phone numbers over there on the right,
10 correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Even got information about the vehicle, 1989
13 Dodge mini van?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And that is to be -- What is it, run --
16 A. Run till sold.
17 Q. What does that mean?
18 A. The ad will run until -- it will run as long as
19 the person needs to,
as long as they would have
20 called every three weeks to renew it.
21 Q. Okay.
So, all of this information was given to
22 you by the caller on October 31st at 8:12 a.m.,
23 right?
24 A. Yes, it was.
25 Q. Now, did you know that Mr. Avery had --
You did
96
1 know that Mr. Avery had Teresa's direct phone
2 number, right?
3 A. No, I did not.
4 Q. Were you aware that he had done a privately
5 arranged shoot with her on October 10th?
6 A. I wasn't -- Those are called hustle shots and I
7 didn't have any information about those, so I
8 wouldn't have known.
9 Q. Well, let me show you a couple more exhibits.
10 (
Exhibit No. 23 & 24 marked for identification.)
11 Q. (By Attorney Buting)~ I'm showing you Exhibit 23;
12 can you identify that, please.
13 A. It's another -- It's one of her lead sheets. And
14 it looks like it has --
I think that's her
15 writing on there. This is when she was done with
16 photos.
17 Q. Right.
18
A. She would fax them in so she could get paid for
19 them.
20 Q. Sure. I understand. And this one also was
21 prepared by you?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. And the date of this one is?
24 A. 10/10/2005.
25 Q. Okay. And what this does is this lists -- Well,
97
1 let me put it up on the screen once and we'll
2 talk about what it says. Can you also identify
3
Exhibit 24?
4
A. This appears to be one of the logs that the
5 photographers did on their own, like a hustle
6 shot, or maybe a call in or something that they
7 would have written up themselves. So this is
8 Teresa's writing.
9 Q. That's looks like Teresa's writing?
10 A. That looks like Teresa's writing, yeah.
11 Q. And can you tell what date this is at all or
12 where it came from or if it's in anyway
13 associated with Exhibit 23?
14 A. I really can't be certain.
15 Q. Okay. Well, let me -- let me put them up on the
16 bigger screen and we'll talk about them from
17 there, please. All right. First, Exhibit 23,
18 let's see here. This is the exhibit you
19 mentioned you prepared on October 10th, right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. It's a little bit hard to see there, but there
22 you go,
October 10th. And this was a list of
23 Teresa's scheduled appointments that had been
24 made through Auto Trader on that day, right?
25 A. Yes.
98
1 Q. And there are just three -- Actually, looks to me
2 like the second one is crossed off; it's a Robert
3 Beaudry?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. First one is Robert Beaudry; second one is Roger
6 Pooegle, or something like that.
7 A. Yes.
8
Q. But Mr. Avery is not on here, correct? He was
9 not a scheduled appointment that day?
10 A. No, he was not.
11 Q. Yet down below she has written Steve Avery,
12 right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And done, next to it, right?
15 A. Right.
16 Q. And, in fact, in your records, you are aware
17 that -- that there's actually a photograph that
18 she took, on that date, of a Pontiac Grand Prix,
19 from Mr. Avery; are you aware of that?
20 A. I wasn't certain of the vehicle;
I did know she
21 had an appointment on the 10th, but I wasn't sure
22 of what the vehicle was.
23 Q. Okay. So that was an appointment that she --
24 that Mr. Avery apparently arranged privately with
25 her, rather than through your office, correct?
99
1 A. It appears to be, yes.
2 Q. And the hustle shot document that you are
3 referring to -- let me zoom out first so the jury
4 can see --
these are forms that the photographers
5 have that they fill out or they may fill out if
6 they are doing hustle shots?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Privately arranged shots, right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. In fact, it says at the top, private party, photo
11 log, right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. I'm sorry, little hard to see. And in this she
14 has got Steve Avery's name?
15 A. Yes.
16
Q. You recognize this to be her handwriting?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Because you have seen it many times. And then
19 she also says Steve Avery, $45, paid cash, right?
20 A. That looks like the account number 45800.
21 Q. Oh, okay.
22 A. That's the account number.
23 Q. I'm sorry. Just says paid cash?
24 A. Right.
25
Q. And it lists the 1984 Pontiac Grand Prix, T-tops,
100
1 and Oldsmobile engine, 5.0, make offer? And it
2 has got a phone number, right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. So, would it be fair to say, then, that the
5 records show Mr. Avery must have had some phone
6 number for Teresa in order to make this private
7 arrangement with her on that date?
8 ATTORNEY KRATZ: Objection, speculative,
9 Judge.
10 THE COURT: I'm going to sustain the
11 objection.
12 ATTORNEY BUTING: All right.
13 Q. (By Attorney Buting)~ This is an example of these
14 hustle shots that are made privately between the
15 photographer and the customer, right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And you know that that does happen frequently
18 with photographers, correct?
19 A. Yes, it does.
20 Q. And that it did happen with Teresa?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. In fact, more than just this one time we
23 mentioned with Mr. Avery; there were many hustle
24 shots she did, correct?
25 A. Yes.
101
1 Q. And when she would do those, you would have no
2 way of knowing that she had gone to one of these
3 private party hustle shots until she faxed back
4 the report at the end of the day; isn't that
5 right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And, unfortunately, though, on October 31st, you
8 never got a form back that said where she had
9 gone, right?
10 A. No.
11 Q. So you don't know whether or not Teresa had any
12 hustle shots, privately arranged shots on
13 October 31st, do you?
14 A. No, I do not.
15 Q. And this phone conversation that you had with her
16 at 2:27 p.m. you had some brief discussion and
17 she said that she was on her way to the Avery's?
18 A. Yes, she did.
19 Q. She said the Avery brothers; is that what she
20 said?
21 A. She said the Avery brothers, yes.
22 Q. She seemed very familiar with them?
23 A. Yes, she did.
24 Q. You don't know whether she meant she was on her
25 way directly or whether she intended to make
102
1 another stop before she got there?
2 A. No, I do not. I just assumed -- She said she was
3 on her way there right now, so, I assumed.
4 Q. Okay. So, if she was not there for another hour,
5 you don't know whether she would have made
6 another stop, get a bite to eat, something like
7 that?
8 A. No, I would not.
9 Q. Or if she had another hustle shot in between?
10 A. No, I would not.
11 Q. More importantly, you don't know whether after
12 Mr. Avery, Teresa had a private hustle shot where
13 she was going, where she was planning to go to,
14 do you?
15 A. She didn't mention it but, no, I did not.
16 Q. And she wasn't in the habit of mentioning when
17 her hustle shots were with you, right?
18 A. Sometimes she would, sometimes she wouldn't, so.
19
Q. Okay. Now, these hustle shots, by the way,
20 sometimes they would be where she would go to a
21 customer for one car and she would hustle a
22 second one while she's there, right?
23 A. Yes.
24
Q. And, in fact, that happened in this Tom Janda
25 case where she got two photos on the same date;
103
1 September 19, right?
2 A. I'm not certain.
3 Q. All right. Well, that was something that
4 happened and those were considered hustle shots
5 too, right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. So, you don't know whether somebody hailed her as
8 she was leaving Steven Avery's residence,
9 somebody else on the Avery salvage property, a
10 brother, customer, whatever, who hailed her and
11 said, hey, let's take a picture, private hustle
12 shot of another vehicle, do you?
13 ATTORNEY KRATZ: Judge, objection, that
14 does calls for speculation.
15 ATTORNEY STRANG: My question was, she
16 doesn't know, I'm trying to establish.
17 THE COURT: That objection is overruled.
18 Q. (By Attorney Buting)~ Is that correct?
19 A. I would not know.
20 Q. All right. Now, just a couple of final -- one
21 other point I want to make here.
Since it
22 appears that Mr. Avery had made a private hustle
23 arrangement with Teresa Halbach in the past, you
24 don't know of any reason why he couldn't have
25 also done that on October 31st, do you?
104
1 A. Unless he would have lost her phone number, no.
2 Q. Okay. And, of course, if he was going to do that
3 -- put it this way, if he had wanted to kill
4 Teresa Halbach, he could have simply called her
5 directly instead of calling your office and
6 leaving a red trail -- easy trail right to his
7 house, couldn't he?
8 A. Yes.
9 ATTORNEY BUTING: Thank you. I have
10 nothing further.
11 THE COURT: Mr. Kratz, any other questions?
12 ATTORNEY KRATZ: No.
13 THE COURT: Very well, you are excused.
14 Members of the jury, that takes us to
15 noon, so we'll take our lunch break at this time
16 and resume at 1:00. I will remind you, again, do
17 not discuss the case or any of the testimony you
18 have heard this morning or anything else about
19 this case during the noon hour.
20 (Jury not present.)
21 THE COURT: All right. Counsel, are there
22 going to be any other outside the presence of the
23 jury matters to address this afternoon that you are
24 aware of?
25 ATTORNEY BUTING: No, Judge.
105
1 ATTORNEY KRATZ: Not that I can think of.
2 ATTORNEY BUTING: I would and I should
3 have, I move the admission of all those exhibits
4 that I referred to, which are -- looks like 20, 21,
5 22, 23, 24.
6 ATTORNEY KRATZ: Well, 24 she said she
7 couldn't identify, so we'll object to that. Doesn't
8 seem that he posted it to the jury when she said she
9 couldn't identify it, but it should not be received;
10 it was not identified.
11 ATTORNEY BUTING: She did identify it as
12 Teresa's handwriting. She identified it as a
13 private party log that's used in their business.
14
The only thing she couldn't identify was the date,
15 but that will be linked up by the prior witness who
16 testified that, on October 10th, 2005, a photograph
17 was taken of that very car that's listed there --
18 THE COURT: Mr. Kratz.
19 ATTORNEY BUTING: -- which is
Exhibit 16.
20 ATTORNEY KRATZ: I don't object to the
21 relevance in that it appears to link up, but she
22 couldn't identify it.
23 THE COURT: I think she identified some
24 elements of it. The date, she couldn't identify,
25 but that's by the nature of the exhibit; though,
106
1 actually, I think the date's repeated again a little
2 higher where it's easier to see. At any rate, I'm
3 going to move all the exhibits.
4 ATTORNEY KRATZ: Thank you.
5 THE COURT: See you at 1:00.
6 ATTORNEY BUTING: At 1:00, you said?
7 THE COURT: Yes.
8 (Noon recess taken.)
9 THE COURT: At this time we are back on the
10 record. Mr. Kratz, you may call your next witness.
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Jury-Trial-Transcript-Day-2-2007Feb13.pdf#page=59
More on Deputy Barry Degnitz
STATE v. BRADY
On July 31, 2005,
sheriff's deputy Barry Degnitz and a second deputy visited Brady's home, seeking a woman for whom an arrest warrant had been issued.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wi-court-of-appeals/1400021.html
The committee voted 5-0 to authorize the sheriff's department to
apply for a grant to help cover some of the costs to investigate methamphetamine use in the county.
"We just got some information on this grant about two weeks ago," said
Lt. for Investigations Barry Degnitz. "An informational meeting is going to be held on Friday so I don't have all the details to give you guys today.
"It's going to be at no cost to the county and it's going to be reimbursing overtime work on
methamphetamine investigations."
Sauve said the grant would be similar to one the county applied for and received last year to help cover overtime costs for
investigations of the use of heroin and other opiates in 2016 and 2017.
"When we got into that we didn't know how much we were going to be able to claim," the sheriff said. "We were able to claim and we got some money back.
"It (the grant program to investigate methamphetamine use) parallels that and we would hope it would be approved and if we have a need for it we can claim money back."
Degnitz was unable to answer a question about how much money the county would be eligible to receive from the program.
"We got $7,200 this year on the heroin grant and we might still get more this year," he said. "We don't know about next year, but hopefully it will be more."
United States Court of Appeals - Our Eagle Seventh Circuit Court of ...
Jul 28, 2005 - June 24, 2003, the CI advised Marinette County Deputy Sheriff Rick Berlin that on ... On the morning of June 25, 2003, Deputy Barry Degnitz.
On the morning of June 25, 2003,
Deputy Barry Degnitz was conducting stationary radar surveillance in Marinette County and conducted a traffic stop of Krueger’s vehicle, which was traveling above the posted speed limit. Degnitz advised dispatch that he had stopped Krueger’s vehicle. He then approached the driver, who identified himself as Krueger.
While Degnitz was running Krueger’s license and vehicle information through the computer in his squad car,
Deputy Jamie Curran along with her drug-detecting canine, a Belgian Malinois by the name of Corey, and Deputy Berlin arrived at the scene. Krueger was asked to step out of his vehicle so that the dog could sniff around the vehicle’s exterior for drugs.
When the canine exhibited interest in the truck, Berlin asked Krueger if there were any drugs in the vehicle. Krueger initially denied having any drugs but eventually admitted that he had some “smoke” in the pocket of his shirt located inside the cab of the truck.
Degnitz searched the cab and found marijuana and a pipe in the location Krueger had described. Krueger was then placed in the backseat of Degnitz’s vehicle.
Corey the canine had “alerted” to both the passenger door of the truck and the driver’s side of the tailgate. When he was placed on the bed of the truck, Corey pushed the cover off of a cooler located in the back of the truck. The cooler was removed from the truck bed and the canine again alerted to the container by scratching. A subsequent search of the cooler revealed a .357 revolver, wrapped in an article of clothing. Located directly beneath the gun was a backpack containing five large plastic bags of marijuana (with an approximate total weight of 4.8 pounds), as well as another plastic bag containing $3,310.56 in cash.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2005/D07-28/C:04-2539:J:_:aut:T:op:N:0:S:0
The Associated Press, 2013
MARINETTE, Wis. — Prosecutors used a tape-recorded interview to show jurors that a white hunter accused of killing a Hmong immigrant initially lied about their confrontation in the woods.
The hunter, James Nichols, first claimed an unknown gunman shot him without mentioning they had fought or that he had shot back, according to the tape played in court Wednesday.
When a sheriff’s deputy asked why Nichols didn’t call police, Nichols started changing his story.
“If someone shoots you and you shoot back, do you have a right to do that?” Nichols asked.
The deputy asked if someone else had been involved and might be dead.
“I had no choice. He shot me at point-blank when I said he was messing with my squirrel hunt,” Nichols said.
Nichols, 29, is accused of shooting and stabbing Cha Vang, 30, after the two got into a dispute while hunting separately for squirrels Jan. 5 in the Peshtigo Wildlife Area.
Nichols is being tried on charges of first-degree intentional homicide, hiding a corpse and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He could face life in prison. Nichols was released from prison in 2002 after serving time for burglary.
Nichols has claimed he argued with Vang in the woods, but Vang’s family has said Vang could not have provoked an attack because he did not speak enough English. Nichols said he got shot in the hand and then he shot and stabbed Vang, according to the criminal complaint.
On Thursday, a sheriff’s official who accompanied Nichols to the wildlife area to look for the missing hunter testified that Nichols twice asked him how self-defense works.
Sgt. Barry Degnitz said he told Nichols he couldn’t answer that question.
Under cross-examination, Degnitz told the jury that Nichols asked how he could help more in the search. He was told he couldn’t and ordered to sit on a log, he said.
Vang’s death rekindled racial tensions in northern Wisconsin, where a Hmong deer hunter fatally shot six white hunters three years ago.
Nichols brought up those shootings in the tape-recorded interview, telling the sheriff’s deputy the “Hmong group, they’re bad.”
He also discussed the shootings with county corrections officer Amber Lynwood hours after the shooting, while she helped transport him to a hospital for surgery on his hands, Lynwood testified Thursday.
Several hundred thousand Hmong fled Laos for the United States after the communists seized control in 1975. Many settled in Minnesota and Wisconsin and California.
Vang and his family left Laos in 1984 for a refugee camp in Thailand, then came to the U.S. in 2004, his brother Yee Vang said. He added that their father was a soldier in Laos who worked for the CIA during the Vietnam War.
Nichols was critical of the way the Hmong hunted, Lynwood said.
“He said they come in to an area and just wipe out everything that moves, squirrels, chickadees, just everything.”
Under cross-examination, Lynwood said Nichols made no “expressions of threat or hate toward the Hmong” when she was with him.
Hunter claims self-defense
In the tape played Wednesday, Nichols tells the deputy Vang spoke “gibberish” and didn’t get off a third shot before he rushed him.
“I didn’t want to die,” Nichols said. “He was choking me when I wrestled him. He tried to rip out my (expletive) eye, and I got the best of him wounded or not wounded. ... I didn’t have a choice.”
Sheriff’s deputies arrested Nichols after he went to a hospital with a .22-caliber bullet lodged in his right hand and an injury to his other hand — about the same time members of Vang’s hunting party reported him missing.
An autopsy determined Vang was shot once with a shotgun and stabbed five times in the neck, Dr. Mark Witeck testified. A wound to Vang’s face suggested it occurred during a struggle, the medical examiner said, backing up Nichols’ account that he fought with Vang. A stick was recovered from Vang’s mouth, Witeck said.
The autopsy could not determine the order of Vang’s injuries, other than he was alive when they all occurred, he said.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21136182/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/tape-seemingly-shows-hunter-lied-sheriff/
