Either the keys were left in the RAV4's ignition (which drained down the battery), the battery was removed from the RAV4, or a thief stole the battery while the RAV4 set abandoned at the turnaround on Highway 147/Main Street, Mishicot (by the old dam in the East Twin River).
In order to move the RAV4 to Avery Auto Salvage (also known as Avery Salvage Yard), the planter needed a replacement battery, and he needed it quickly.
The type of battery for a 1999 Toyota RAV4 is called a Group 35 battery. The battery in the RAV4 when it was discovered at Avery Auto Salvage is a Group 58 battery, which is used in mid 1990s Lincoln Crown Victorias, the type of vehicle in the fleets for the city and county of Manitowoc, Wisconsin.
A Group 58 battery is longer and wider than the battery tray of the RAV4; therefore, it would have to placed on top of the battery tray rather than inside it, and you would not be able to attach both ends of the hold-down clamp (see images above).
The Group 58 battery is shorter than the Group 35; therefore, you possibly could connect both of the battery cables to the terminals (based on Trial Exhibit 302, you, at least, could connect the negative cable to the terminal).
Q. Next exhibit, please?
A. State's Exhibit 302, this is showing that the battery cable was disconnected from the battery.
Q. And on which vehicle is this photograph?
A. This is on the RAV4.
Trial Exhibit 302, a photo of the RAV4 battery entered into evidence, looks intentionally cropped to not reveal the other end of the hold-down clamp or to not reveal the positive terminal and cable.
The battery hold-down clamp appears to be secured but we only see the one end in the photo.
The negative terminal is disconnected; we don't see the positive terminal in the photo.
So if both cables were not connected, how was the RAV4 started?
By jumping the starter solenoid.
How to Jump a Starter Solenoid
The starter solenoid in your vehicle is the switch that provides power from the battery to the starter motor, which turns over the engine and starts your vehicle. When the solenoid goes out, you can't start your car and are typically left stranded.
Solenoids aren't difficult to install, but if your car won't start, you need a way to start the truck one time to get it to the store. This is a dangerous procedure and will cause a shock--but if you have to do it, it can be done.
Pop the hood and locate the starter solenoid. It's typically on the fender well of the vehicle, near the battery.
Get out the screwdriver and touch the metal end to the post that leads to the starter, opposite to the one that leads to the battery. You're going to turn the screwdriver into a manual switch, bypassing the solenoid in the process.
Drop the other end of the screwdriver down, touching the metal on the shaft of the solenoid to both terminals on the solenoid. At the same time, have your assistant turn the ignition to start the vehicle. This will cause a lot of sparks and could pass electrical current through your body if you're not using a rubber-handled screwdriver, so be careful and don't touch the connections for long.
Quickly remove the screwdriver from the solenoid. If it's left on too long, it can arc weld itself to both terminals, which is a bad thing. At this point, the vehicle should be running. If not, repeat the process.
Warning: By jumping your starter solenoid, you are turning the screwdriver or other metal implement into a manual switch. If you're not careful, you can turn your body into the conduit as well. Plus, if you don't get the screwdriver off of the contacts soon enough, you can burn out the starter motor. This is a dangerous procedure, so don't do it unless you absolutely have to start the vehicle.
"You can try connecting the starter solenoid with the positive terminal of the car battery to fire up the engine. This method will help you when you really need to start your car in an emergency." [Source]
"You could try jumping the solenoid. You do this going under the hood and finding the starter solenoid, and connecting a jumper from the positive battery terminal to the hot lead on the solenoid. Turn the vehicle to the on position with the key and then jump the starter. Be careful of moving parts. You may want to use an alligator clip on the starter, and just touch the other end to the battery. This will not work if it has anti-theft cause the fuel injectors won’t turn on." [Source]
"Back in the 50's and through the 90's it was pretty easy to hot-wire a vehicle: simply connect the negative battery terminal to the ignition coil and defeat the steering lock somehow (usually with a big hammer), then short the starter solenoid to crank the engine. You can do it with a hammer, screw driver, and some bailing wire in a pinch. Since 2000, nearly all vehicles have chips or transponders in their ignition keys which have to be present for the vehicle to start. The car cannot be started without them and the thief is forced to steal a key, use a tow truck or carjack the owner to obtain the vehicle." [Source]
Video Above: How to Diagnose and Repair Starter Motor for Toyota Rav4
Video and Screen Show Above: How to remove starter motor for Rav4 Toyota 1996-2005
Nowhere in the CASO file does it give details about the positioning of the battery and cables.
It is after March 1, 2006, when Tom Fassbender and Mark Wiegert coerce Brendan Dassey into saying Steven Avery went under the hood, that the battery and cables come into play.
CASO Page 603
TYPE OF ACTIVITY: Interview of Brendan R. Dassey
DATE OF ACTIVITY: 03/01/06
REPORTING OFFICER: Inv. Mark Wiegert
TYPE OF ACTIVITY: Processing of Evidence
DATE OF ACTIVITY: 03/29/06
REPORTING OFFICER: Deputy Jeremy Hawkins
TYPE OF ACTIVITY: Processing of Evidence
DATE OF ACTIVITY: 04/03/06
REPORTING OFFICER: Deputy Jeremy Hawkins
TYPE OF ACTIVITY: Interview of Service Manager of Best Toyota
DATE OF ACTIVITY: 07/03/06
REPORTING OFFICER: Inv. Mark Wiegert
This was five months after Wiegert asked a Toyota parts manager "what type of battery would have been in the 1999 Toyota RAV4."
Hawkins wrote that he "opened the hood" and then Lt. Kelly Sippel "placed the battery leads onto the battery" and started the engine using the key that was in evidence.
CASO Page 1001
TYPE OF ACTIVITY: Identifying Key to RAV4
DATE OF ACTIVITY: 11/20/06
REPORTING OFFICER: Deputy Jeremy Hawkins
Stahlke tried to check the odometer on November 7, 2005, but "there appeared to have been a dead battery." Stahlke testified that he opened the hood. He said he couldn't recall if both cables were unconnected, "but I know for sure one was."
Trial Transcript Page 2692
5 Q. And what did you do to obtain the odometer
6 reading?
7 A. Well, looking at the instrument panel, we
8 couldn't determine what the odometer reading was,
9 since there appeared to have been a dead battery.
10 Q. And what -- Did you check any further as to
11 whether there was a dead battery?
12 A. Yes. We thought we needed to charge the battery
13 so we opened up the hood of the vehicle and
14 discovered that the battery cables had been
15 disconnected.
16 Q. Would you look at the next exhibit that you have,
17 identify it, please.
18 A. Exhibit 302.
19 Q. And what does that exhibit show?
20 A. This is the disconnected battery cable.
21 Q. Is that how you observed it when you opened up
22 the hood?
23 A. Yes, it is.
24 Q. It was you who opened up the hood, correct?
25 A. That's correct.
1 Q. How did you do that?
2 A. Released the interior latch on the vehicle and
3 then opened up the hood, releasing the latch on
4 the hood, or the front of the vehicle. And
5 propped it open with its -- its a -- with a prop,
6 I guess, on the hood itself and saw this battery.
7 Q. And what did you determine by looking at the
8 battery?
9 A. Well, that -- that was the reason for the problem
10 with no power to the instrument panel, is that
11 the battery was disconnected.
12 Q. And when you opened up the hood of the RAV4, were
13 you wearing gloves?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. What type of gloves were you wearing?
16 A. Latex
Trial Transcript Page 2755
1 Q. Now, eventually, you discovered that either one
2 or both battery cables were disconnected?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. Under the hood?
5 A. That's true.
6 Q. You were the one who opened the hood?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Which required releasing a lever inside, near the
9 driver's left leg?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And then popping the hood latch when that
12 appeared through the grill, at the front of the
13 car?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. Lifted the hood, propped it up with the metal
16 rod, and looked at the battery posts?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. One or both of those was disconnected?
19 A. If I recall, they both were disconnected, but I
20 know for sure one was.
21 Q. And the one that we saw in the photo yesterday, I
22 saw some reddish or reddish brown discoloration
23 on or near the battery post?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. Was that something you tested?
1 A. No.
2 Q. That, you decided, was not suspected blood?
3 A. Well, I believe there was actually a
4 phenolphthalein test done on that, but there was
5 no -- it was not positive.
6 Q. Okay. So whatever that was, wasn't blood.
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. Now, you were still wearing the same latex gloves
9 when you opened the hood?
10 A. The same latex gloves that I put on prior to
11 opening the hood?
12 Q. Yes.
Trial Transcript Page 2776
Q. You do know enough to say that, once those
21 battery cables were disconnected, the key to the
22 Toyota wouldn't have done you any good in
23 starting the car?
24 A. That's true.
25 Q. Unless you reconnected the battery cables?
1 A. Correct.
Sherry Culhane testified that when she tried the RAV4 key from evidence it turned but the engine didn't turn over because the battery was not connected.
Trial Transcript Page 181
Q. After you did the swabbing of the key, did you do
4 anything else with the key?
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. Please explain to the jurors what you do with the
7 key.
8 A. I took the key to see if it fit the vehicle. So
9 I put the key into the ignition. I still had, of
10 course, gloves on, during this entire process. I
11 put the key into the ignition and turned the
12 ignition. It did turn the ignition, but it did
13 not crank the car. And I later learned that that
14 was because, I believe, the battery had been
15 disconnected. But it did actually turn
16 completely over. I also locked, I believe it was
17 the front driver's side door, and used the key to
18 unlock the door.
Ken Kratz, during closing arguments, theorized that Steven Avery disconnected the battery so that a keyless entry remote alarm could not be sounded if and when the salvage yard was searched.
Trial Transcript Page 5406
13 Mr. Buting mentioned yesterday that
14 perhaps the hood latch, perhaps the DNA that is
15 found here was caused by that of Mr. Stahlke,
16 because Mr. Stahlke reached up under and opened
17 up and found that the battery cable was
18 disconnected. Well, so what. Mr. Stahlke talked
19 about he was rummaging around, he was actually
20 touching all kinds of DNA and touching all kinds
21 of blood, or any of those kind of things?
22 Absolutely not.
23 These are professionals. These are
24 people that process evidence for a living.
25 Mr. Stahlke had gloves on when he opened -- latex
1 gloves when he opened this particular vehicle.
2 So it is not Mr. Stahlke's, it was Mr. Avery's
3 DNA that is on the hood latch.
4 Now, the defense also asked why would
5 Mr. Avery disconnect the battery. You heard them
6 asking for speculation, guessing why Mr. Avery
7 would disconnect a battery. I have got an answer
8 and I'm going to tell you right now, right now,
9 that this is speculation. This is guessing. All
10 right. This isn't evidence. It's not even close
11 to it. It's kind of what the defense has been
12 doing through at least their closing arguments.
13 But I am going to speculate and I'm
14 going to guess that a man who hid the SUV and
15 knew that people were going to come looking for
16 that SUV, thought a little bit ahead, not just to
17 crush the car, and taking -- or in unhooking the
18 battery. But when citizen searchers looked at
19 40 acres of cars, and they looked and they go,
20 oh, my goodness gracious, how am I going to find
21 that. Mr. Avery may have thought about those
22 little devices that most of us have on our newer
23 cars. Where we're able to press a button and our
24 lights go on, or an alarm goes on, or something
25 flashes, where you can find your car in a parking
1 lot, if you are like me sometimes and I forget
2 where I have parked my car.
3 Is that why Mr. Avery unhooked the
4 battery, so that the citizen searchers that he
5 knew were coming couldn't just press a button and
6 of the 40,000 (sic) cars, could walk right to
7 that. That's possible. All right. That's an
8 inference, a logical inference, that could be
9 drawn. But that's speculating, and that's not
10 what I'm going to do. That's not what I'm asking
11 you to do. I'm not asking you at all in this
12 case to speculate. I'm simply answering
13 Mr. Buting's question.
Video and Screen Show Above: How to remove starter motor for Rav4 Toyota 1996-2005
Nowhere in the CASO file does it give details about the positioning of the battery and cables.
It is after March 1, 2006, when Tom Fassbender and Mark Wiegert coerce Brendan Dassey into saying Steven Avery went under the hood, that the battery and cables come into play.
CASO Page 603
TYPE OF ACTIVITY: Interview of Brendan R. Dassey
DATE OF ACTIVITY: 03/01/06
REPORTING OFFICER: Inv. Mark Wiegert
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 this 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.
CASO Page 882
TYPE OF ACTIVITY: Processing of Evidence
DATE OF ACTIVITY: 03/29/06
REPORTING OFFICER: Deputy Jeremy Hawkins
At approximately 1940 hours, I photographed the exterior door handle on the driver's side of the RAV4. After the door handle was photographed, I took a DNA swab of the driver's side door handle of the exterior of the Toyota.
At approximately 1941 hours, I took a photograph of the hood latch of the Toyota RAV4.
At approximately 1945 hours, I took a photograph of the left battery cable of the Toyota RAV4.
At approximately 1947 hours, I took a photograph of the right side battery cable of the Toyota RAV4.
After I photographed the right and left battery cable and hood latch, and Sgt. TYSON took DNA swabs of these locations, the storage unit containing the Toyota RAV4 was secured.
Deputy Jeremy HawkinsCASO Page 936
Calumet Co. Sheriff's Dept.
JH/bdg
TYPE OF ACTIVITY: Processing of Evidence
DATE OF ACTIVITY: 04/03/06
REPORTING OFFICER: Deputy Jeremy Hawkins
Deputy HAWKINS and I went to the storage shed where TERESA HALBACH's vehicle was being stored. Deputy HAWKINS did unlock the storage shed. Inv. WIEGERT and Special Agent FASSBENDER had informed us they wished for us to do DNA swabs on the interior and exterior of the door handles of TERESA HALBACH's vehicle. They also requested DNA swabs done on the hood latch as well as the battery cables for the vehicle. TERESA's vehicle would be identified as Property Tag#8027.
At 1930 hours, I did a DNA swab on the interior passenger door handle.
At 1933 hours, I did a DNA swab on the exterior passenger door handle.
At 1937 hours, I did a DNA swab on the hood latch to the hood of the vehicle.
At 1941 hours, a DNA swab was done on the left battery cable.
At 1943 hours, a DNA swab was done on the right battery cable.
Deputy HAWKINS also did DNA swabs on the interior and exterior handles of the driver's door. After the DNA swabs had been collected, the door to the storage locker was secured. Deputy HAWKINS and I transported the swabs that were collected to the sheriff s department and the swabs were secured in the CALUMET COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT evidence room.
Sgt. Bill TysonCASO Page 873
Calumet Co. Sheriff's Dept.
BT/bdg
TYPE OF ACTIVITY: Interview of Service Manager of Best Toyota
DATE OF ACTIVITY: 07/03/06
REPORTING OFFICER: Inv. Mark Wiegert
On 07/03/06 at approximately 9:00 a.m., I (Inv. WIEGERT of the CALUMET COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT) made phone contact with a CURT JUDSON who would be the Parts Manager at LE MIEUX TOYOTA in the City of Green Bay.
My purpose for speaking with CURT was to determine what type of battery would have been in the 1999 Toyota RAV4.
CURT states the battery would be called a Group 35 battery. The name on it would be True Start. He states the battery is made for TOYOTA by INTERSTATE BATTERIES, however, would not say INTERSTATE on it.
I did request that CURT send me the schematics of the battery and its connections. It should be noted I did receive a fax from CURT of those schematics.
Investigation continues.
Inv. Mark WiegertAccording to the CASO file, on November 20, 2006, more than a year after Teresa went missing, Wiegert asked Jeremy Hawkins "to connect the battery of the RAV4" to "see if the Toyota key that was found in the bedroom of Steven Avery would start the RAV4."
Calumet Co. Sheriff's Dept.
MW/bdg
This was five months after Wiegert asked a Toyota parts manager "what type of battery would have been in the 1999 Toyota RAV4."
Hawkins wrote that he "opened the hood" and then Lt. Kelly Sippel "placed the battery leads onto the battery" and started the engine using the key that was in evidence.
CASO Page 1001
TYPE OF ACTIVITY: Identifying Key to RAV4
DATE OF ACTIVITY: 11/20/06
REPORTING OFFICER: Deputy Jeremy Hawkins
On 11/20/06, I (Deputy JEREMY HAWKINS of the CALUMET COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT) was asked by Inv. MARK WIEGERT to connect the battery of the RAV4 and see if the Toyota key that was found in the bedroom of STEVEN AVERY would start the RAV4.
I retrieved Property Tag #7620, the Toyota key, and also property Tag #9130, two keys to the lock, out of secure storage.
I went out to the blue storage unit with Lt. KELLY SIPPEL. I unlocked the locks to the blue storage unit. I opened the blue storage unit at approximately 9:38 a.m. Lt. SIPPEL and myself put gloves on.
At approximately 9:39 a.m., I opened the hood release and Lt. SIPPEL opened the hood of the motor vehicle. Lt. SIPPEL then placed the battery leads onto the battery.
At approximately 9:43 a.m., I put the key into the ignition and turned the key.
At approximately 9:45 a.m., I started the RAV4 using the key that was in evidence.
At approximately 9:47 a.m., the battery was disconnected and the hood to the RAV4 was closed.
I then secured the blue storage unit by placing the locks back on and locking the locks.
The Toyota key and the keys to the blue storage unit were placed back into secure storage by myself.
Deputy Jeremy HawkinsAt Avery's trial, fingerprint expert Nick Stahlke was asked about the RAV4's battery cables and whether or not they were connected.
Calumet Co. Sheriff's Department
JH/bdg
Stahlke tried to check the odometer on November 7, 2005, but "there appeared to have been a dead battery." Stahlke testified that he opened the hood. He said he couldn't recall if both cables were unconnected, "but I know for sure one was."
Trial Transcript Page 2692
5 Q. And what did you do to obtain the odometer
6 reading?
7 A. Well, looking at the instrument panel, we
8 couldn't determine what the odometer reading was,
9 since there appeared to have been a dead battery.
10 Q. And what -- Did you check any further as to
11 whether there was a dead battery?
12 A. Yes. We thought we needed to charge the battery
13 so we opened up the hood of the vehicle and
14 discovered that the battery cables had been
15 disconnected.
16 Q. Would you look at the next exhibit that you have,
17 identify it, please.
18 A. Exhibit 302.
19 Q. And what does that exhibit show?
20 A. This is the disconnected battery cable.
21 Q. Is that how you observed it when you opened up
22 the hood?
23 A. Yes, it is.
24 Q. It was you who opened up the hood, correct?
25 A. That's correct.
1 Q. How did you do that?
2 A. Released the interior latch on the vehicle and
3 then opened up the hood, releasing the latch on
4 the hood, or the front of the vehicle. And
5 propped it open with its -- its a -- with a prop,
6 I guess, on the hood itself and saw this battery.
7 Q. And what did you determine by looking at the
8 battery?
9 A. Well, that -- that was the reason for the problem
10 with no power to the instrument panel, is that
11 the battery was disconnected.
12 Q. And when you opened up the hood of the RAV4, were
13 you wearing gloves?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. What type of gloves were you wearing?
16 A. Latex
Trial Transcript Page 2755
1 Q. Now, eventually, you discovered that either one
2 or both battery cables were disconnected?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. Under the hood?
5 A. That's true.
6 Q. You were the one who opened the hood?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Which required releasing a lever inside, near the
9 driver's left leg?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And then popping the hood latch when that
12 appeared through the grill, at the front of the
13 car?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. Lifted the hood, propped it up with the metal
16 rod, and looked at the battery posts?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. One or both of those was disconnected?
19 A. If I recall, they both were disconnected, but I
20 know for sure one was.
21 Q. And the one that we saw in the photo yesterday, I
22 saw some reddish or reddish brown discoloration
23 on or near the battery post?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. Was that something you tested?
1 A. No.
2 Q. That, you decided, was not suspected blood?
3 A. Well, I believe there was actually a
4 phenolphthalein test done on that, but there was
5 no -- it was not positive.
6 Q. Okay. So whatever that was, wasn't blood.
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. Now, you were still wearing the same latex gloves
9 when you opened the hood?
10 A. The same latex gloves that I put on prior to
11 opening the hood?
12 Q. Yes.
Trial Transcript Page 2776
Q. You do know enough to say that, once those
21 battery cables were disconnected, the key to the
22 Toyota wouldn't have done you any good in
23 starting the car?
24 A. That's true.
25 Q. Unless you reconnected the battery cables?
1 A. Correct.
Sherry Culhane testified that when she tried the RAV4 key from evidence it turned but the engine didn't turn over because the battery was not connected.
Trial Transcript Page 181
Q. After you did the swabbing of the key, did you do
4 anything else with the key?
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. Please explain to the jurors what you do with the
7 key.
8 A. I took the key to see if it fit the vehicle. So
9 I put the key into the ignition. I still had, of
10 course, gloves on, during this entire process. I
11 put the key into the ignition and turned the
12 ignition. It did turn the ignition, but it did
13 not crank the car. And I later learned that that
14 was because, I believe, the battery had been
15 disconnected. But it did actually turn
16 completely over. I also locked, I believe it was
17 the front driver's side door, and used the key to
18 unlock the door.
Ken Kratz, during closing arguments, theorized that Steven Avery disconnected the battery so that a keyless entry remote alarm could not be sounded if and when the salvage yard was searched.
Trial Transcript Page 5406
13 Mr. Buting mentioned yesterday that
14 perhaps the hood latch, perhaps the DNA that is
15 found here was caused by that of Mr. Stahlke,
16 because Mr. Stahlke reached up under and opened
17 up and found that the battery cable was
18 disconnected. Well, so what. Mr. Stahlke talked
19 about he was rummaging around, he was actually
20 touching all kinds of DNA and touching all kinds
21 of blood, or any of those kind of things?
22 Absolutely not.
23 These are professionals. These are
24 people that process evidence for a living.
25 Mr. Stahlke had gloves on when he opened -- latex
1 gloves when he opened this particular vehicle.
2 So it is not Mr. Stahlke's, it was Mr. Avery's
3 DNA that is on the hood latch.
4 Now, the defense also asked why would
5 Mr. Avery disconnect the battery. You heard them
6 asking for speculation, guessing why Mr. Avery
7 would disconnect a battery. I have got an answer
8 and I'm going to tell you right now, right now,
9 that this is speculation. This is guessing. All
10 right. This isn't evidence. It's not even close
11 to it. It's kind of what the defense has been
12 doing through at least their closing arguments.
13 But I am going to speculate and I'm
14 going to guess that a man who hid the SUV and
15 knew that people were going to come looking for
16 that SUV, thought a little bit ahead, not just to
17 crush the car, and taking -- or in unhooking the
18 battery. But when citizen searchers looked at
19 40 acres of cars, and they looked and they go,
20 oh, my goodness gracious, how am I going to find
21 that. Mr. Avery may have thought about those
22 little devices that most of us have on our newer
23 cars. Where we're able to press a button and our
24 lights go on, or an alarm goes on, or something
25 flashes, where you can find your car in a parking
1 lot, if you are like me sometimes and I forget
2 where I have parked my car.
3 Is that why Mr. Avery unhooked the
4 battery, so that the citizen searchers that he
5 knew were coming couldn't just press a button and
6 of the 40,000 (sic) cars, could walk right to
7 that. That's possible. All right. That's an
8 inference, a logical inference, that could be
9 drawn. But that's speculating, and that's not
10 what I'm going to do. That's not what I'm asking
11 you to do. I'm not asking you at all in this
12 case to speculate. I'm simply answering
13 Mr. Buting's question.
Andrew Colborn is a mechanic who was a customer of Avery Salvage Yard.
Biography: Born in March 1959; active duty U.S. Air Force, 1976-1988; auto transmission mechanic in Las Vegas, 1988-1990; diesel mechanic in Wisconsin at Waupaca Foundry Inc., 1990-1992; joined Manitowoc County Sheriff's Office as jailer, 1992; lieutenant of the detective bureau until his retirement in early 2018.
With Officer Colborn testifying as being a customer of Avery Salvage Yard (he'd go there to find parts for his 1950 Chevy pickup), it seemed reasonable to conclude Colborn planted the plates and the vehicle at Avery Salvage Yard.
Andy Colborn's Trial Testimony:
11 Q. Prior to the 3rd of November, 2005, had you been
12 to that property?
13 A. Prior to 2005?
14 Q. Prior to November 3rd of 2005, had you been to
15 that property?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And under what circumstances, can you tell the
18 jury about that?
19 A. Again, as a customer.
20 Q. Let's talk about that, first. What do you mean
21 as a customer.
22 A. I have several older vehicles, one, as a matter
23 of fact, is a 1950 Chevrolet pickup truck. And
24 I -- in the process of tinkering around with it,
25 I have gone to several auto salvage and I have
1 always been referred to the Avery Auto Salvage as
2 the place to go if you are looking for an older
3 model vehicle parts -- or parts for an older
4 model vehicle.
5 Q. Was there one person in particular that you would
6 normally have contact with at the Avery Auto
7 Salvage?
8 A. No, actually, usually there were two; either I
9 had contact with Charles Avery or Earl Avery.
10 Q. All right. They are brothers and, in fact, the
11 owners of the business; is that right?
12 A. Yes, sir.
13 Q. Let me ask you this, Sergeant Colborn, if you
14 know, prior to the 3rd of November, 2005, when
15 was the last time you were at the Avery Auto
16 Salvage business?
17 A. I think the last time I was at the Avery Auto
18 Salvage business would have been 1999.
19 Q. All right. So at least six years previously?
20 A. Yes, sir.
21 Q. But you knew where it was?
22 A. Yes, sir.
23 Q. Then, on November 3rd, after Mr. Wiegert asked
24 for your help; did you proceed to this scene?
25 A. Yes, sir.
1 Q. And that's 2005; is that right?
2 A. Yes, sir.
3 Q. Can you tell the jury, please, what happened when
4 you got there on November 3rd?
5 A. Again, I knew that Earl Avery, who was probably
6 the person that I have had the most contact with
7 or know the best, doesn't live on the Avery Auto
8 Salvage property, so my initial -- what I was
9 initially trying to do was to make contact with
10 Charles Avery, who does reside on there.
11 I knew Charles to -- I didn't know if he
12 owned the business, but I certainly knew that he
13 managed the business. So I was going to make
14 contact with him and ask him if he had seen
15 someone on the property taking pictures of a
16 vehicle that was for sale.
17 Q. In looking for Charles Avery, do you remember
18 what building you went to?
19 A. Well, initially, I was kind of surprised when I
20 drove in, because the shop area, a lot of --
21 there were new buildings and things had changed
22 since the last time I was there. But I was
23 attempting to make contact at his residence,
24 which I believe is right behind that large,
25 square shaped building.
1 Q. We're handing you a laser pointer to assist you
2 in your --
3 A. I believe that --
4 Q. -- testimony.
5 A. I thought that was his residence right there.
6 Q. And you were pointing actually to the residence
7 which would be just the south of the --
8 A. That one right there.
9 Q. You have to wait until I finish my question, sir.
10 You are pointing to a trailer or a residence just
11 south of the Avery business itself. And I think
12 counsel is willing to stipulate that is Charles
13 Avery's residence.
14 ATTORNEY STRANG: Certainly my
15 understanding.
16 THE COURT: All right. The record will
17 reflect the stipulation.
18 Q. (By Attorney Kratz)~ Did you drive or walk into
19 this property?
20 A. I drove.
21 Q. Can you tell the jury where you came in from,
22 please.
23 A. There is -- To my knowledge there is only one
24 entrance onto the property and that's off Avery
25 Road, which the whole of Avery Road isn't
1 pictured on that picture. But I ended up coming
2 down that dirt road there and parking almost
3 where there is a vehicle parked right now.
[–]OB1Benobie
Cadaver dogs are trained to smell the decomposition of rotting flesh, not blood spatter inside an enclosed vehicle such as a Rav4. Besides, the dogs would never have been able to track Teresa’s sent to the Rav4 while blood was inside.
Whoever planted the Rav4 on Avery’s property possibly still had Teresa's sent on them as he tracked through the back part of Avery’s.
Following the dogs tracks, it seems as though Teresa’s vehicle left the property. It’s as if they follow the vehicle right back onto the property from another way into Avery’s, which means the Rav4 did leave the property.
This means that whoever planted the Rav4, this same person, soon after, planted the bones, moving bones to several areas around the property.
This means whoever planted the bones, the dogs followed in his footsteps.
Who was the first person to view the Rav4 after it was located?
Who was there searching the grounds before the dogs started searching?
Who started searching the grounds after the search warrant was obtained?
Either the bones were planted after the Rav4 was planted, or the bones were planted after the search warrant was obtained -- getting Steven and his family off the property as they conducted the seizure of the property and started their investigation.
You can’t expect Steven to have walked around all these locations. He had no reason to be in some of these locations, but officers did, as they walked all around the area.
Who was the first person to have gone to the Radandt property, looking in or around the burn barrel?
Whoever was the first on this scene at the Radandt property is the corrupt culprit who planted the bones and possibly the Rav4.
Who was the Officer first on the scene at each location where bones were found on, where the cadaver dogs alerted?
This Officer’s path is the path and direction those dogs followed.
This Officer is the one who planted the evidence.
And, later, the dogs picked up Teresa’s sent, or the sent of a dead rotting body or burned remains.
This is your answer to whoever planted evidence.
[–]7-pairs-of-panties
There are rabbit holes all over the place. That's what keeps us here. There is constantly something new to look at. The evidence and news reports were all about perceptions of the townspeople. This was never meant to be seen in front of a world wide stage.
Lately, it seems as though we're gonna hear that the battery was traced to a county fleet (maybe not a specific officer, but the fleet is BAD enough). All I gotta say about all this is...if the battery in the car is a fleet battery, then they HAD to have KNOWN she was DEAD. For any cop or county employee to move her car to the lot, he would never do so unless he already knew she was dead.
Soooo, they had to have found her BODY, not her BONES, to have known she was dead.
Lately, I'm thinking it was COPS, NOT THE KILLER, who burned the body in the Manitowoc County quarry. The only other thing I see is the killer and the cops working together to frame Avery? Sounds unlikely, but if the killer was caught, then he'd probably do whatever he had to do, cooperating with the cops.
This battery could really blow up this entire case.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
The RAV4 was clearly staged as evident by Exhibit 291 therein showing branches carefully placed to not conceal the RAV4 logo or its dealer information.
Exhibit 130 revealed the Rambler hood and plywood were carefully placed to not conceal the RAV4's body lines or the two tone colors.
It became more than apparent the person knew how to stage a vehicle. The use of only debris laying around, easily carried by one person, indicated the person was working alone. It also indicated the person didn't have access to the salvage yard's equipment thereby was not a person employed by the salvage yard.
Comparing Exhibit 31 with Exhibit 71 revealed how easy the vehicle was to find. The vehicle was placed on a small berm, across from a bend in the road, making it essentially eye level and very easy to see by simply walking down the salvage yard's main road.
Exhibit 92 revealed the person knew how to navigate the salvage yard to get to the desired staging location thereby revealing the person was/is a customer of ASY.
There were no less than six locations the person could have more easily parked the vehicle but all would have made the vehicle harder to find.
Exhibit 31, 71 and 161 revealed the customer's profile: the old International pickup, with an old Chevy pickup's bed, and the old Dodge Power Wagon pickup, are both rare vehicles thereby eye candy to a customer with an old pickup.
Clearly, a customer searching for old pickup parts would have known that area very well and the trucks as easy finds.
In light of the information, I recalled a witness testifying being a customer with an old pickup. Unable to recall which witness, I doubled back on the transcripts and searched for “pickup”. The search revealed Officer Colborn testifying being a customer of ASY, who'd go there to find parts for his 1950 Chevy pickup.
At that point, it seemed reasonable to conclude an Officer planted the plates the evening of the 3rd then the vehicle the evening of the 4th.
In consideration of Exhibit 302, it seemed reasonable to conclude the plates were planted to connect Mr. Steven Avery to Ms. Teresa Halbach's vehicle in the event a battery wasn't obtained.
From Post Crescent:
Andy Colborn's role in Avery wrongful conviction: When Colborn worked in the county jail in 1995, he received a call from a detective who worked in Brown County who believed he had an inmate in the Green Bay jail, now known to be Gregory Allen, who committed a rape in Manitowoc County that someone else was in prison for. Colborn and his supervisors decided not to vigorously pursue the matter at the time.
Key moments from sworn testimony of Oct. 13, 2005: Colborn said he could not remember details of the phone call that could have spurred Avery's exoneration in 1995, rather than in September 2003. Other county employees suspected Colborn of conferring with then-Sheriff Tom Kocourek about the matter, which was never followed up by anyone at the sheriff's office.
"I'm not ruling out the possibility that I may have discussed it with someone else, but I can't specifically tell you names of people I may have mentioned this to."
Colborn testified his boss Lt. James Lenk was not present when Colborn met with Sheriff Ken Petersen the day after Avery's 2003 exoneration to discuss the phone call from eight years earlier that fell through the cracks.
"Sheriff Petersen was downstairs where our patrol division is, and I got the impression he was waiting for me to come into work. There were other people coming in and out of the room, but I don't recall who."
Colborn was asked if he opened the conversation with Petersen surrounding the Avery matter.
"No, he initiated the conversation by saying he had spoken with Lieutenant Lenk and he felt that it would be in the best interests of Lieutenant Lenk and myself and the sheriff's department, I would suppose, that if I was to give him a statement on the gist of our conversation or what we had discussed. And I asked for clarification on that, you know. And he goes, 'Well, what you discussed about a telephone call that you received while you were working in the jail. And I said 'OK.' And before I went out on patrol, I provided this statement."
Wiegert's strange call to Toyota about battery, and photo shows battery that's not recommended
By foghaze
June 14, 2016
http://i.imgur.com/MpmFbnW.png
[–]dorothydunnit
Remember that the battery was disconnected when they found it?
That's been the source of some speculation. The prevailing theory was that it was disconnected to prevent the alarm from going off.
So, here's some more speculation: Maybe whoever left the car there switched the battery with another vehicle.
Why would they do that? Maybe there was blood or other evidence on the battery and they didn't want it to be found?
[–]dh7225
Interstate Battery website states this code tells when the battery was shipped from the factory to the local Interstate Battery wholesale distributor. Sorry I don't know how to link a site.
This battery was shipped from the manufacture October 2004. Bottom left of battery is coded J4. A is Jan, B is Feb..... J is October. The 4 is the year 2004. Also with none of the small round labels removed (which mean it has not been recharged) it was purchased between Oct 2004 and Jan 2005.
[–]Demonkittyrag
I'm sure you're right, but just asked my hb.
He says there's a good chance it wouldn't start at all, and that you would experience problems after a short amount of time because of some electrical blabla, which could cause something something burning blabla (I didn't give him the specifics about the battery, though, and he was on his way out, so I didn't catch the details).
So I spoke to my hb again, and this is what he said: The 35 and the 58 battery has almost the same amp, so in principle the car would start.
The problem, however, is that the 58 is bigger in size, so it will not physically fit. It cannot be fastened.
What we see in the picture is not a battery that someone has tried to remove; it's a battery that someone has tried to install with little success because the wires are too short for this battery, hence the positive and negative plugs cannot fit.
When unplugged like this, the car will obviously not start.
If plugged somehow, the car would start, but the battery would jiggle (because it's too big to be fastened) and bump into the engine, etc.
That's why no car owner would replace a recommended battery with this one, according to my hb.
The 58 battery is used in Mazdas and Fords, btw.
[–]Moonborne
Question of the day: The cables were too short to connect to the battery, so how did they start the car at the lab?
[–]Demonkittyrag
Good question.
Asked hb again, he says it can easily be done with so called "false start" (in Norwegian we call it "thieves start"). Have you heard of it?
[–]Moonborne
"Thieves start," lol, never heard of it. But how would you start it if the cables don't reach the battery?
[–]Demonkittyrag
Detailed technical stuff is hard for me to explain in English, so I googled up this - false start/thieves start explained by an undercover police officer:
"You pull off the plastic cover under the steering wheel, exposing several wires. 'You need to use all these wires to get the car going,' says Tim Ross, an undercover New Jersey Police officer specialising in car theft. Don't rush, you could still be gone in 60 seconds. 'Firstly, you need to get the ignition on. Touch the two matching red wires together,' explains Tim. 'If you're successful the dash will light up.' Now the ignition's on, you can power up the starter motor. Crossing the brown lead with the reds should crank over and kick off the engine. You're in business.'
[–]DMsaysrollaD6
In the States it is called "hot-wiring" a car. :)
[–]Chevron07
I forget, did they ever start it? I know they tested the key, and it turned in the ignition, but I don't know if they started it.
[–]DonKarenAnn
It was started 11/20/2006.
[–]foghaze[S]
Actually the length and width were too big, not the height. The height is actually shorter than a 35 so I think the cables would fit. It's the length and width that shouldn't fit. If they did get it in there it would be really tight. I don't think it could be secured safely at all. I looked up all the cars the MT-58 fits and their is a huge list on Interstates website and it's not used in any Toyotas at all. Mostly used in Ford and Mercury, and in a few Lincolns, Jeeps and Mazdas.
[–]Demonkittyrag
According to my hb it's precisely the width/length that makes the cables not fit, because the distance between the positive and negative poles are different in these batteries.
[–]foghaze[S]
Really? Interesting I was just trying to figure out if the location of the battery was on the right or left side of the vehicle. I found 2 1999 RAV4's and one was on passenger side and one was on the drivers side. If it's on the drivers side then the battery is in backwards. Wouldn't that be something? If it were in backwards? We need to find out if the battery was on right or left. I think it's passenger side. If that is true then it's in there correctly but I would like verification somehow..
[–]Demonkittyrag
Great thinking! So far I haven't seen any pics that can verify one or the other, but something might show up in the documents.
Meanwhile: My hb has given me another lecture on batteries, wires and so on (I have a hard time explaining all the tech in English).
He is certain the battery was unsuccessfully attempted install, not disconnected.
He states that whoever did it might have managed to reach one pole to plug, but there is not enough wire to reach the other because the 58 battery is wider.
Btw: He has not seen MaM yet, so provides a fresh no-background-story-look when watching pics.
[–]foghaze[S]
Excellent, thank you so much. It sounds like this is why it's not connected! WOW!
[–]Demonkittyrag
New pic (I haven't learned how to link correctly yet) also shows battery is on passenger side, I think.
Oh, blast. Just found another picture of TH's car and battery and presented to hb. That changed his mind because the strap that secures the battery is on. This new pic also shows that the cable fits the unplugged side. Both things a bit odd, because of the size of the battery, but still. Hmm...
[–]Barredea88
You should call interstate batteries and ask. There are shops everywhere. I'm sure they'd be more than helpful and maybe uncover something big here if this battery wouldn't work. It'll explain the terminal being disconnected.
[–]searching4theprize
My husband studied mech eng in college and was on a formula hybrid racing team (where he worked on many cars.) He gave me a nifty little spreadsheet breaking down the differences between these three batteries (I would try and post an image but I'm at work currently.)
The main difference between the MT-58 and the MT-35/85 is literal size - the MT-58 is roughly 1-2" off in all dimensions - as well as Reserve Capacity: 80 for the MT-58 & 100/95 for MT-35/85.
He stated that basically "the combination of it [potentially] being cold out and the battery being lower than the recommended crank rating could potentially cause transmission problems in an automatic car [with a computer-controlled transmission.]"
[–]e-gregious
Yes, the cold. While living in a suburb north of Detroit, I learned the extreme importance of the ability to start the car.
In between the extreme cold and less cranking power, I would never choose a battery with the chance of not starting and/or being a drain on the computer controlled transmission.
When buying a battery for my GM cars, I would buy the best I could afford. Getting anything less than what is required (say cheaper) would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Save 10 or 15 dollars and then pay that back in spades to get the right battery in there when it fails. Add to that the possibility or probability of being on a country road, alone.
If the dealer replaced Teresa's battery with one that could fail her while out on the road, they truly fucked up.
[–]foghaze[S]
I called a few mechanics and they said they would never put in an unrecommended battery simply due to the fact it could come back and bite them if something did happen. They want to cover their assses even if it is a close match. From what I have found it's the physical size that is the problem. It may not even fit at all because it's too big. We need someone with a RAV4 to try to put a 58 in their car.
I called one mechanic. He said it would be larger in size but shorter and it wouldn't start as well and wouldn't last as long. When I get time I will call for more opinions.
[–]Barredea88
Yea I'd definitely call interstate because they'd be able to verify all of this and give more info.
[–]foghaze[S]
I think the thing that strikes me the most odd is Wiegert's phone call 8 months after the fact regarding the battery.
[–][deleted]
The thing is, IMO, that LE were making these inquiries to offer explanations in opposition to defense inquiries during the trial.
KK was very active in this regard, trying to pinpoint possible challenges.
The problem is that many things weren't pursued by the defense. I'm not trying to criticize them because perhaps they didn't know where it would lead but...
[–]foghaze[S]
Of course she could have changed her battery out but why on earth would she put the wrong type of battery in? Her RAV should take only 2 batteries. Type 35 or type 85. There is a 58 in there. It wouldn't start as well with the 58 nor would it last long at all. What moron would put the wrong battery in their car? It's much smaller too.
[–][deleted]
As a female also I wouldn't branch out with a battery not recommended. We listen to mechanics or suggestions from dealers. My husband might talk me into something different but she didn't have one.
[–]lrbinfrisco
As a male, I drive down the street to O'Reilly's Auto Parts, tell them I need a new battery, the make, model, and year of my car. Buy said battery and let them install if with no extra charge. Seriously, any auto parts store, dealership, mechanic, etc. will look it up and tell you which one's you can buy. Pretty standard for any part. Don't know why anyone male or female wouldn't do that unless they had it memorized or were a complete idiot.
[–]What_a_Jem
Regarding the missing nut someone mentioned, I have also wondered if investigators looked under the vehicle to see if it had been dropped, although there is no mention of this in the CASO report.
If someone intended to move the vehicle at a later date, wouldn't they have put the nut back on the threaded post half a turn maybe, so the battery could be quickly re-connected?
[–]Henbury
I do not believe they used a key in the ignition between 10:30 5 Nov and Groffy on 6 Nov.
Don’t need a key to shift the transmission into neutral, this can be done with a screwdriver.
If they put a key in the ignition they also would have made their life easier and straightened the front wheels for towing/maneuvering.
The steering remained locked from ASY to WSCL with a slight right turn.
I believe the MT-58 battery was put in before the ASY.
[–]chromeomykiss
It has always been my opinion since day 1 that the Rav4 was driven onto the yard from that back quarry entrance off Jambo Creek Rd. From the "sand" on the inside of wheel wells, the piece of "tumbleweed" stuck inside driver's side wheel well, and the route that is easily visible in aerial images and during helicopter portion of "flyover video".
[–]Jmystery1[S]
The dispatch call from Victoria Siebert gives more credibility to the story. And the way neighbor Wilmer Siebert explains this makes sense as far as planting the vehicle, I wonder if it was moved into place afterwards, at night, during non business hours.
[–]dark-dare
TH car was obviously driven on muddy dirt roads, i.e. mud splashed up side, tires tread full of mud. There is damage, and up under the front wheel there are chunks of mud -- looks like it hit a ditch and buried the left front into a soft bank. The difference is that mud didn't come from just a gravel road: that mud came from a dirt road, i.e. quarry. There were lots of treed areas in the quarry where the car could be hidden until dark.
In consideration of Exhibit 302, it seemed reasonable to conclude the plates were planted to connect Mr. Steven Avery to Ms. Teresa Halbach's vehicle in the event a battery wasn't obtained.
From Post Crescent:
Andy Colborn's role in Avery wrongful conviction: When Colborn worked in the county jail in 1995, he received a call from a detective who worked in Brown County who believed he had an inmate in the Green Bay jail, now known to be Gregory Allen, who committed a rape in Manitowoc County that someone else was in prison for. Colborn and his supervisors decided not to vigorously pursue the matter at the time.
Key moments from sworn testimony of Oct. 13, 2005: Colborn said he could not remember details of the phone call that could have spurred Avery's exoneration in 1995, rather than in September 2003. Other county employees suspected Colborn of conferring with then-Sheriff Tom Kocourek about the matter, which was never followed up by anyone at the sheriff's office.
"I'm not ruling out the possibility that I may have discussed it with someone else, but I can't specifically tell you names of people I may have mentioned this to."
Colborn testified his boss Lt. James Lenk was not present when Colborn met with Sheriff Ken Petersen the day after Avery's 2003 exoneration to discuss the phone call from eight years earlier that fell through the cracks.
"Sheriff Petersen was downstairs where our patrol division is, and I got the impression he was waiting for me to come into work. There were other people coming in and out of the room, but I don't recall who."
Colborn was asked if he opened the conversation with Petersen surrounding the Avery matter.
"No, he initiated the conversation by saying he had spoken with Lieutenant Lenk and he felt that it would be in the best interests of Lieutenant Lenk and myself and the sheriff's department, I would suppose, that if I was to give him a statement on the gist of our conversation or what we had discussed. And I asked for clarification on that, you know. And he goes, 'Well, what you discussed about a telephone call that you received while you were working in the jail. And I said 'OK.' And before I went out on patrol, I provided this statement."
Wiegert's strange call to Toyota about battery, and photo shows battery that's not recommended
By foghaze
June 14, 2016
http://i.imgur.com/MpmFbnW.png
[–]dorothydunnit
Remember that the battery was disconnected when they found it?
That's been the source of some speculation. The prevailing theory was that it was disconnected to prevent the alarm from going off.
So, here's some more speculation: Maybe whoever left the car there switched the battery with another vehicle.
Why would they do that? Maybe there was blood or other evidence on the battery and they didn't want it to be found?
[–]dh7225
Interstate Battery website states this code tells when the battery was shipped from the factory to the local Interstate Battery wholesale distributor. Sorry I don't know how to link a site.
This battery was shipped from the manufacture October 2004. Bottom left of battery is coded J4. A is Jan, B is Feb..... J is October. The 4 is the year 2004. Also with none of the small round labels removed (which mean it has not been recharged) it was purchased between Oct 2004 and Jan 2005.
[–]Demonkittyrag
I'm sure you're right, but just asked my hb.
He says there's a good chance it wouldn't start at all, and that you would experience problems after a short amount of time because of some electrical blabla, which could cause something something burning blabla (I didn't give him the specifics about the battery, though, and he was on his way out, so I didn't catch the details).
So I spoke to my hb again, and this is what he said: The 35 and the 58 battery has almost the same amp, so in principle the car would start.
The problem, however, is that the 58 is bigger in size, so it will not physically fit. It cannot be fastened.
What we see in the picture is not a battery that someone has tried to remove; it's a battery that someone has tried to install with little success because the wires are too short for this battery, hence the positive and negative plugs cannot fit.
When unplugged like this, the car will obviously not start.
If plugged somehow, the car would start, but the battery would jiggle (because it's too big to be fastened) and bump into the engine, etc.
That's why no car owner would replace a recommended battery with this one, according to my hb.
The 58 battery is used in Mazdas and Fords, btw.
[–]Moonborne
Question of the day: The cables were too short to connect to the battery, so how did they start the car at the lab?
[–]Demonkittyrag
Good question.
Asked hb again, he says it can easily be done with so called "false start" (in Norwegian we call it "thieves start"). Have you heard of it?
[–]Moonborne
"Thieves start," lol, never heard of it. But how would you start it if the cables don't reach the battery?
[–]Demonkittyrag
Detailed technical stuff is hard for me to explain in English, so I googled up this - false start/thieves start explained by an undercover police officer:
"You pull off the plastic cover under the steering wheel, exposing several wires. 'You need to use all these wires to get the car going,' says Tim Ross, an undercover New Jersey Police officer specialising in car theft. Don't rush, you could still be gone in 60 seconds. 'Firstly, you need to get the ignition on. Touch the two matching red wires together,' explains Tim. 'If you're successful the dash will light up.' Now the ignition's on, you can power up the starter motor. Crossing the brown lead with the reds should crank over and kick off the engine. You're in business.'
[–]DMsaysrollaD6
In the States it is called "hot-wiring" a car. :)
[–]Chevron07
I forget, did they ever start it? I know they tested the key, and it turned in the ignition, but I don't know if they started it.
[–]DonKarenAnn
It was started 11/20/2006.
[–]foghaze[S]
Actually the length and width were too big, not the height. The height is actually shorter than a 35 so I think the cables would fit. It's the length and width that shouldn't fit. If they did get it in there it would be really tight. I don't think it could be secured safely at all. I looked up all the cars the MT-58 fits and their is a huge list on Interstates website and it's not used in any Toyotas at all. Mostly used in Ford and Mercury, and in a few Lincolns, Jeeps and Mazdas.
[–]Demonkittyrag
According to my hb it's precisely the width/length that makes the cables not fit, because the distance between the positive and negative poles are different in these batteries.
[–]foghaze[S]
Really? Interesting I was just trying to figure out if the location of the battery was on the right or left side of the vehicle. I found 2 1999 RAV4's and one was on passenger side and one was on the drivers side. If it's on the drivers side then the battery is in backwards. Wouldn't that be something? If it were in backwards? We need to find out if the battery was on right or left. I think it's passenger side. If that is true then it's in there correctly but I would like verification somehow..
[–]Demonkittyrag
Great thinking! So far I haven't seen any pics that can verify one or the other, but something might show up in the documents.
Meanwhile: My hb has given me another lecture on batteries, wires and so on (I have a hard time explaining all the tech in English).
He is certain the battery was unsuccessfully attempted install, not disconnected.
He states that whoever did it might have managed to reach one pole to plug, but there is not enough wire to reach the other because the 58 battery is wider.
Btw: He has not seen MaM yet, so provides a fresh no-background-story-look when watching pics.
[–]foghaze[S]
Excellent, thank you so much. It sounds like this is why it's not connected! WOW!
[–]Demonkittyrag
New pic (I haven't learned how to link correctly yet) also shows battery is on passenger side, I think.
Oh, blast. Just found another picture of TH's car and battery and presented to hb. That changed his mind because the strap that secures the battery is on. This new pic also shows that the cable fits the unplugged side. Both things a bit odd, because of the size of the battery, but still. Hmm...
[–]Barredea88
You should call interstate batteries and ask. There are shops everywhere. I'm sure they'd be more than helpful and maybe uncover something big here if this battery wouldn't work. It'll explain the terminal being disconnected.
[–]searching4theprize
My husband studied mech eng in college and was on a formula hybrid racing team (where he worked on many cars.) He gave me a nifty little spreadsheet breaking down the differences between these three batteries (I would try and post an image but I'm at work currently.)
The main difference between the MT-58 and the MT-35/85 is literal size - the MT-58 is roughly 1-2" off in all dimensions - as well as Reserve Capacity: 80 for the MT-58 & 100/95 for MT-35/85.
He stated that basically "the combination of it [potentially] being cold out and the battery being lower than the recommended crank rating could potentially cause transmission problems in an automatic car [with a computer-controlled transmission.]"
[–]e-gregious
Yes, the cold. While living in a suburb north of Detroit, I learned the extreme importance of the ability to start the car.
In between the extreme cold and less cranking power, I would never choose a battery with the chance of not starting and/or being a drain on the computer controlled transmission.
When buying a battery for my GM cars, I would buy the best I could afford. Getting anything less than what is required (say cheaper) would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Save 10 or 15 dollars and then pay that back in spades to get the right battery in there when it fails. Add to that the possibility or probability of being on a country road, alone.
If the dealer replaced Teresa's battery with one that could fail her while out on the road, they truly fucked up.
[–]foghaze[S]
I called a few mechanics and they said they would never put in an unrecommended battery simply due to the fact it could come back and bite them if something did happen. They want to cover their assses even if it is a close match. From what I have found it's the physical size that is the problem. It may not even fit at all because it's too big. We need someone with a RAV4 to try to put a 58 in their car.
I called one mechanic. He said it would be larger in size but shorter and it wouldn't start as well and wouldn't last as long. When I get time I will call for more opinions.
[–]Barredea88
Yea I'd definitely call interstate because they'd be able to verify all of this and give more info.
[–]foghaze[S]
I think the thing that strikes me the most odd is Wiegert's phone call 8 months after the fact regarding the battery.
[–][deleted]
The thing is, IMO, that LE were making these inquiries to offer explanations in opposition to defense inquiries during the trial.
KK was very active in this regard, trying to pinpoint possible challenges.
The problem is that many things weren't pursued by the defense. I'm not trying to criticize them because perhaps they didn't know where it would lead but...
[–]foghaze[S]
Of course she could have changed her battery out but why on earth would she put the wrong type of battery in? Her RAV should take only 2 batteries. Type 35 or type 85. There is a 58 in there. It wouldn't start as well with the 58 nor would it last long at all. What moron would put the wrong battery in their car? It's much smaller too.
[–][deleted]
As a female also I wouldn't branch out with a battery not recommended. We listen to mechanics or suggestions from dealers. My husband might talk me into something different but she didn't have one.
[–]lrbinfrisco
As a male, I drive down the street to O'Reilly's Auto Parts, tell them I need a new battery, the make, model, and year of my car. Buy said battery and let them install if with no extra charge. Seriously, any auto parts store, dealership, mechanic, etc. will look it up and tell you which one's you can buy. Pretty standard for any part. Don't know why anyone male or female wouldn't do that unless they had it memorized or were a complete idiot.
[–]What_a_Jem
Regarding the missing nut someone mentioned, I have also wondered if investigators looked under the vehicle to see if it had been dropped, although there is no mention of this in the CASO report.
If someone intended to move the vehicle at a later date, wouldn't they have put the nut back on the threaded post half a turn maybe, so the battery could be quickly re-connected?
[–]Henbury
I do not believe they used a key in the ignition between 10:30 5 Nov and Groffy on 6 Nov.
Don’t need a key to shift the transmission into neutral, this can be done with a screwdriver.
If they put a key in the ignition they also would have made their life easier and straightened the front wheels for towing/maneuvering.
The steering remained locked from ASY to WSCL with a slight right turn.
I believe the MT-58 battery was put in before the ASY.
[–]chromeomykiss
It has always been my opinion since day 1 that the Rav4 was driven onto the yard from that back quarry entrance off Jambo Creek Rd. From the "sand" on the inside of wheel wells, the piece of "tumbleweed" stuck inside driver's side wheel well, and the route that is easily visible in aerial images and during helicopter portion of "flyover video".
[–]Jmystery1[S]
The dispatch call from Victoria Siebert gives more credibility to the story. And the way neighbor Wilmer Siebert explains this makes sense as far as planting the vehicle, I wonder if it was moved into place afterwards, at night, during non business hours.
[–]dark-dare
TH car was obviously driven on muddy dirt roads, i.e. mud splashed up side, tires tread full of mud. There is damage, and up under the front wheel there are chunks of mud -- looks like it hit a ditch and buried the left front into a soft bank. The difference is that mud didn't come from just a gravel road: that mud came from a dirt road, i.e. quarry. There were lots of treed areas in the quarry where the car could be hidden until dark.
Let’s see you are 25 yrs. old making a tad above minimum wage, your car battery is still under warranty, but you insist Toy. dealer install the wrong battery & charge you way more for a 75 month extended warranty. Why???? To impress your friends???? #MakingAMurderer2— Kathleen Zellner (@ZellnerLaw) December 13, 2018
[–]dirge_real
ReplyDeleteAll manufactured and sealed products have a manufacturing code in the US.
Food, auto parts, TVs, M&M bags, everything. The manufacturer code can be tracked. Large quantity (lot) shipments are tracked to destination.
It is entirely realistic that the RAV battery could be traced to a county municipality like MCSO
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/a46gpy/cop_battery_with_extended_warranty_found_in/
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
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.
https://www.reddit.com/r/StevenAveryCase/comments/a16n3p/latest_breakthrough/
[–]magiclougie
Zellner tweeted on November 15, 2018: "A witness smelled horrible odor of something burning in Manitowoc County gravel pit the evening of 10/31/05."
The Interstate 58 battery found in TH's SUV isn't for a RAV4. Toyota only uses group size 24, 27, and 35, and TH's 1999 RAV4 used the latter.
KZ replied "Yes" when asked: "Have your traced who changed the battery or owned the battery that was put in her car?"
Really?? self.MakingaMurderer
ReplyDeleteby Ninja-esque
I am typically very supportive of the prosecution & law enforcement side regarding criminal behavior. I have a pretty conservative view in that regard. But C'MON! Mantiwoc/Calumet county officials & officers are the most back woods, backwards, uneducated, bottom of the barrel people I have ever witnessed. ALL of them should be embarrassed. They shouldn't even be allowed to call themselves prosecutors, judges, forensic experts & law enforcement. Go back to school... or is it, go to school? Hopefully they will learn something from the real deals, Zellner & Nirider. That's what intelligent & educated people look like. Take some notes. And just stop with the Steven & Brendan are guilty nonsense. Learn from your mistakes instead of trying to defend your mistakes. At the very least, realize that neither one of them had a fair trial regardless of whether you believe they're guilty or not. That was not a trial at all, but rather a 3 ring circus, freak show. SMH. I'm losing faith in humanity.
He should have been a POI, but instead he was immediately accused of a crime without proper investigation of other POI's. The evidence used against him, IMO, was easily planted & the motive was very clear. You have a man who was cleared by DNA evidence of his previous crime & who was suing the county for millions of dollars for which they had no insurance coverage. I don't believe they ever thought it would be questioned.
I believe the correct statement would be that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that he's guilty. That is how the justice system was designed. It is NOT, beyond a reasonable doubt of his innocence. That mindset is exactly how innocent people end up in prison.
If you are truly interested in finding out why I believe what I believe regarding the evidence, let's talk specifically. Let's not vaguely list a bunch of items at once. What do you think is the strongest piece of evidence that proves his guilt?
Nobody knows what kind of new evidence Zellner is going to present. Somebody with Zellners reputation surely isn't going to make a fool of herself. She has an amazing track record for exonerations & she's a force due to her knowledge & expertise in the field. Everyone will know soon enough what evidence she has obtained. But keep in mind, it is not her job to figure out who committed the crime. It is her job to prove someone other than SA could have committed the crime.
The evidence can point in any direction they make it point. The placement of his blood in the car doesn't make sense. The key having none of Teresa's DNA does not make sense. The 2 different scenarios that the same prosecutor used to try the same murder does not make sense. You can't kill somebody twice. They had blinders on while fabricating evidence because SA was who they wanted in prison for the crime. It was such a disservice to the entire Halbach family & of course to Teresa.
[–]Soloandthewookiee
The evidence can point in any direction they make it point.
How many ways does Teresa's car on Avery's property point to you?
How many ways does Teresa's key in Avery's trailer point to you?
How many ways does Teresa's bones in Avery's backyard point to you?
CONTINUED...
[–]Ninja-esque[S]
DeleteFunny you choose some of the most ridiculous aspects of the case.
The car being located prior to when it was actually found at the ASY, Colburn obviously calling in the plates prior to the car being found, Pam being lead by God to find the car, the shady, partial air footage released to the defense, the fact that there was a car crusher in the yard that could have been used at any time to dispose of the car, the fact that the Avery's gave them permission to search the ASY after many previous searches were performed all scream, planting of evidence.
Teresa's single, valet key with none of her DNA on it found after, what was it? 8 previous searches? If the key were there all along, it would have been found the 1st time through by any competent member of law enforcement. That's simple, 101 type stuff. The bedroom was ransacked, but somehow they just totally missed that key the 1st 8 times around?
Teresa's bones in the fire pit was probably one of the most flubbed parts of the investigation. Anybody trained in forensics knows to document before disrupting. Her bones were located in 3 different places & only a portion of them were recovered. The coroner, who was the expert, was denied entry to examine the evidence. That should have been illegal in itself. It was like the trained monkey part of the circus.. I mean investigation.
If you have that much blind faith in people, I feel sorry for you because you must be an easy target. Or is it just law enforcement & county officials who could never do such a thing as plant evidence? May I remind you that a person has to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There were other people who COULD have committed the crime, including county officials. Yet that was ignored. The investigation was botched either intentionally or simply because the investigators lacked knowledge of proper procedure. These Barneys Fifes are either that incompetent or just plain crooked. Either way, they should obtain some training on forensics & ethic duties. You seem to come up with an excuse for this ignorance/corrupt behavior & it's disturbing to believe that someone would condone it. I hope you're never in a similar situation & have to rely on people such as yourself to bring the truth to light.
Not a farce at all. But I'm aware of injustice when I see it. Zellner is only trying to fix the injustice that a human being has been subjected to. You cannot lock somebody up for any offense if it hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If millions of people are researching this case and feel it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then I would say there's a problem. One would think that if there were questions regarding somebody's guilt, people in general would support finding out the truth. I'm not going to blindly believe something just because somebody of authority is saying it's so.
[–]BenBratz
Setting up the appointment to sell Barb’s vehicle. Using her name is not suspicious because it was her vehicle. Blocked calls are common, especially if you’re unsure of the number you’re calling.
[–]dorothydunnit
It was a circus. It still is, thanks to the bozo prosecutor and incompetent and corrupt LE. They should all be put in jail. No wait, they're good "family" men, right? How dare we speak out against the bastards that deliberately let a rapist go free and now are doing the same thing with a killer still on the loose for the murder of Teresa Halbach. Only in Wisconsin.
The real murderer should be in jail, but thanks to the sexting, sexual harassing, rapey "Prize" and his incompetant, corrupt L friends, the real murderer is free. Same as Penny Bernstein's real rapist was free for all those years.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/a51zix/really/
Has anyone seen a RECORD of Ken Kratz logging OUT of ASY after the RAV4 was finally loaded onto the trailer (hours after being discovered and ignored/neglected as a possible lead to the fate of an endangered missing woman) - or did he ride off the property INSIDE the trailer?
ReplyDeleteby Mr_Precedent, self.TickTockManitowoc
[–]SparePattern
I know this is been stated many times, but I just wanted to reiterate this since you mentioned it. NO POLICE WERE LOOKING FOR A MISSING PERSON. Not once. Once they "found" her car, there should have been a combing over of the car, and a massive police search for her because now they have the vehicle. Things should've ramped up to an 11. But instead it's NOT OPENING THE CAR, a whole day of standing around and putting a tarp on it, making sure it was put into a trailer, and an all night travel to Madison before it's even opened. No widespread searches, nothing. I find this to be one of the biggest tells that they were well aware that she was not missing. I know that you cannot prove anything with this but man, I just need to keep saying this because I feel like this is one of the points that gets swept under the rug by the other side and lost in the weeds on purpose.
[–]BillyFreethought
Thought I read somewhere that he left just behind or with the trailer?
[-]magiclougie
11/5/05, 8:42 PM - Ken Kratz, Nick Mursburger and Carla Avery sign out
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Trial-Exhibit-142-Sign-in-Sign-out-Log-2005Nov05-at-Car-Crusher.pdf
Nick is the man who hauled the RAV4 on the enclosed trailer to the crime lab in Madison.
[–]hunche73
Why would he have been there at all? Is it normal for the district attorney to be present during the investigation?
[–]BillyFreethought
I'm not sure. But if you check the entry/exit logs I'm sure Kratz turns up the day the RAV4 is found.
[–]DominantChord
True that. He arrives around 1 p.m. A few hours later he is named special prosecutor. Check the great timelines in the right column.
ETA: He leaves in the evening (according to the entry/exit logs). He is temporarily away with others in the afternoon to obtain a warrant from Fox.
[–]JJacks61
IIRC, there were 3-4 DA's that showed up that afternoon at the ASY.
[–]Guido_Incognito
Yes, Greisbach and Rohrer were there too
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/13009958/06_nov_2005_kratz_rohrer/
https://imgur.com/d7t3STq
Avery's New Criminal Trial
ReplyDeleteby seekingtruthforgood
Avery's new criminal trial is going to be a slam dunk case for his defense team. A ton of doubt exists, as does evidence of law enforcement and prosecutorial misconduct.
Jury verdicts are subjective as hell. And, in the near future, a group of average people, just like us, will consider his case, along with material evidence, presented by the state and his defense team, under the microscope of what is known today, not then. Using current public weigh-in as the bar, it's clear that more of us are convinced the state did not meet its burden of finding/presenting the truth. It also appears more members of the public believe the state and law enforcement tampered with and manipulated evidence to convince a former jury of a scenario the state merely claimed was true.
If even only one (1) member of the jury believes doubt exists, Avery walks. Look at the split here. The eventual outcome of this case is a no brainer.
So, in knowing how this case is going to play out, when Avery is released, how will this bear out for the victims of this crime? The victims are Teresa Halbach and the People.
In Penny's case, justice was never served. Allen was never held accountable for her rape. Rather, Allen was left alone for another decade, free to cause more harm to others and society at large. Allen is currently incarcerated for another's rape, not the rape of Penny. It's tragic.
If Avery murdered Teresa, the final disposition will, too, be tragic. He will be released and free to cause more harm to our society at large. And, in terms of accountability, if Avery murdered Teresa, when he walks, accountability won't fall on him - it's nothing personal for Avery - he's just being the killer he is. However, in the case of the state, it is personal. Men and women, hired by us, a collective body of the People, used our trust and took our money to commit acts of misconduct. These suppossed good guys became the bad guys, with our money, and committed violations of ethics and laws - violations which will result in a woman's murderer walking free. In contrast, if someone else murdered Teresa, due to their misconduct, a killer has walked amongst us for more than another decade. Will that killer, like Allen, never be held accountable for a horrific crime? Probably.
This is an incredibly tragic situation which could have been avoided had Manitowoc County and DOJ officers involved with Avery's wrongful conviction removed themselves from the investigation. And, had Calumet, the remaining DOJ agents and prosecutor just done their jobs - ethically, legally, above board and beyond reproach - they too would have insured that all agencies/persons connected to Avery's wrongful conviction and civil suit were not involved with the Halbach case. Calumet and Ken Kratz let the fox into the hen house. Calumet and Ken Kratz own that.
With Avery's brief being filed in the near future, it seems like a good time to start reconciling where this case is going to end up. The outrage we feel, on either side of the spectrum, needs to be shifted to those who are actually responsible for this mess - and, it 'aint Avery or Zellner.
CONTINUED...
[–]OB1Benobie
DeleteIncredible post. I honestly believe Zellner will most certainly create reasonable doubt and show cause for concern as to the corruption within the System, on both sides of the wall pertaining to Law Enforcement, and all levels of the Court System. How these two entities can create such a blatant disgraceful act of corruption against its people, and be backed up and protected by one another, is ridiculous anymore. It shows that they are truly out to exploit the citizens any which way they can, furthermore proving that they truly are a Corrupt Organization. I'm not saying in every case, but in this type of System we taxpaying citizens pay into, we don't pay your salaries to get it wrong, and we sure as hell don't pay you to take advantage of your position and corrupt our System.
That's right, our System. We own that Bitch, and you work for us. We pay you to do your job the right way and by doing it right the first time around, not to get it wrong, and purposely wrongfully convict innocent people, stripping them of their freedom. You are civil servants, and swore to an oath to protect and serve us and to defend or Rights, and instead all you have done is corrupt the System and turn it against its people. Supporters, and those who seek criminal justice reform within our Court Systems, need to build an organization to create new legislation that will get these matters of corruption investigated properly, making it a high priority; and by seeking punishment and accountability to those who are caught in an act of any type of corruption, holding them to the highest of standards that the system today fails to do.
No longer should those who hold a position of power in the Court or Law Enforcement be able to escape or evade justice. That standard of law is equal in the rights as people. And since all men and women are created equal, you shall answer to your crimes as the rest of society. The time where a smack on the wrist, with paid leave, and your resignation, for debt incurred by corruption is over. It's time that those of you who are caught corrupting the System against the people do your time like the rest of us. It's about time that higher standard is met with equal penance the law will allow. 'We the People' can create change. 'We the People' can create reform. 'We the People' can create new laws and form new bills to pass through State Legislature. 'We the People' can make a difference. We can uncorrupt the corruption plaguing our System. If a person is innocent, he/she should always have an avenue available to prove his innocence, without being infringed upon or denied. Yet Avery's Constitutional Right is being violated here, and he certainly deserves a new trial without prejudice or bias opinions.
CONTINUED...
[–]redalwaysknows
DeleteThey did insert themselves. You really think that if they simply said “there is a gigantic conflict of interest, we cannot provide assistance, maybe try one of a half dozen of other state or federal agencies that would gladly help with a missing person/murder investigation of this magnitude” that there would have been a problem?
And it doesn’t matter if they were named or not in the suit. Being deposed still creates a massive conflict of interest. That cannot be denied or explained away or excused no matter how much you think Avery is guilty. No matter what, that was a massive fuckup by all involved that should have never, ever happened. And because of that fuckup there are legitimate questions that have never been answered satisfactorily about the evidence in this case.
You’re asking people to believe that there is no funny business going on whatsoever with the evidence here, despite strange pieces evidence of evidence being found in strange and questionable at best fashion by the specific individuals involved in the depositions.
The real problem is that it looks exceedingly likely that the key was planted. Even if you say, forget the key, look at everything else, the simple likely scenario of the key being planted, at least in my mind, taints the reliability and legitimacy of every single other piece of evidence found in the case.
Like, you don’t find the coroner stuff the least bit shady?
My ultimate take...man there is a LOT of evidence and if they’re saying it was ALL planted, you better come With some good proof...but the entire investigation is such a gigantic shit show with the amount of conflict between various parties, shady dealings, things happening that don’t make any sense.
The key is shady as hell, the way in which they destroyed the forensic integrity of the crime scene with their lack of organization/protocol is shady as hell, high-up officials blackballing the coroners access was shady as hell, AC calling on the plate when/how he did might be the most insanely shady shit I’ve ever heard about in any criminal investigation ever......
If you think Avery is guilty and are glad the state went to the unethical extra lengths to pin him down, fine, but let’s not fucking pretend like there aren’t major fucking problems here.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/a58wh8/averys_new_criminal_trial/?limit=500
[–]redalwaysknows
ReplyDeleteYou’ve still failed to present any good reason why the county officials who stepped in to prevent the coroner from being on scene didn’t do the same for other county employees, elected or not.
I bring up the coroner moreso to show there was a distinct plan by county officials to pick and choose who they allowed to participate in the investigation, when if they felt like there was a significant conflict of interest they should have barred ALL Manitowoc officials unilaterally.
The fact that they allowed people involved in the depositions to get involved to the point where they claim to have discovered critical evidence while they blocked the coroner who had no direct or indirect affiliation with the pending litigation. It was over a rape case, there was no dead body involved, the coroner was not deposed and wasn’t going to be deposed.
The conflict of interest didn’t exist except in title for the coroner.
Whereas AC himself took the call in the 90s. He was DIRECTLY involved in SA spending a decade+ extra in prison. Lenk didn’t investigate AC for his missteps. They were both complicit, directly and indirectly.
The fact that you are trying to distance the two guys that were directly involved while trying to tie in the coroner who wasn’t even indirectly involved is pretty hilarious. Because one position is elected? That somehow changes the core facts? Get outta here with that nonsense.
Elected or not is irrelevant. How about what actually matters: direct links to the wrongful conviction litigation.
Even with your logic, is the Sheriff not an elected official? Do the officers for the Manitowoc Sheriff's office answer to the Sheriff? Yet another direct line of conflict you choose to ignore to try to push forward your flawed narratives/reasoning.
AC being as honest as they come is pretty funny considering he is obviously lying through his teeth about the phone call from his cell phone calling the RAV4 plates in. He literally lied under oath. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. I’m sure you’ll deny it, which is fine. But regardless of your theory on the RAV, I think the evidence clearly demonstrates that AC was looking at Teresa’s RAV4.
The explanation that another police department gave him the plate and car info, saying it was Teresa’s car, is completely blown away by the fact that he then called in the plate to dispatch from his cell phone to find out if it was Teresa’s car. There simply is not a legitimate reason for him to have made that call in the manner he made it.
I came in here for a reasonable discussion, that was obviously wrong. I admit that there’s no smoking gun that proves Avery’s innocence, because everything isn’t black and white. This case is particularly grey. If you can’t admit the massive investigatory flaws/misconduct that prevails throughout this case though, then you’re obviously just shilling for the guilty side and are incapable of any real critical thinking.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/a58wh8/averys_new_criminal_trial/?limit=500
[–]Irwin321
ReplyDeleteProps to you for uncovering it. I can’t imagine the time and energy invested in that. Very cool!
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
Thanks! It's funny, sometimes I get the sense a picture is trying to tell me something. I got that sense with the photos of the battery, plates, the old International with the old Chevy bed, the old red Dodge Power Wagon, and the before & after of the bookcase.
When KZ revealed the Chapstick, it became clear there was only one planter.
[–]Irwin321
Oh really? Only one and not a couple of people. Wow. Would love to hear your whole theory!
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
Here is how the evidence planting connects to a single person:
1) The Chapstick, delivered to the Evidence Tech, connects the Evidence Tech to the bullet planting.
2) The use of a swab to plant the blood connects the Evidence Tech to the blood planting.
3) The lack of interior photos of the RAV4, while at the scene, connects the Crime Scene Photographer to the blood planting.
4) The lack of photographing the remains in the pit as found connects the Crime Scene Photographer to the remains planting.
5) The key, coupled with the undisturbed items on the bookcase, connects the Search Party Member to the key planting.
6) A witness reported the RAV4 being along 147 to a Patrol Officer thereby connecting the Patrol Officer to the RAV planting.
7) The non-RAV4 battery found in TH's RAV4 is used in 94-96 Crown Vics, which are within the model years coming out of service in 05', thereby connecting a Municipal Worker to the RAV4 planting.
8) The location where the RAV4 was staged, which is where ASY keeps old trucks, coupled with only using debris easily carried by one person, connects a ASY Customer with an old truck working alone to the RAV4 planting.
9) The “sweaty” swab delivered by Officers, 5 months after the fact when trial counsel was questioning the blood evidence, was never tested for the source cells of the DNA. Subsequently, the only way to have known the source to be “sweat” would have been to swab a “sweaty” object. Subsequently, connecting a Correctional Officer, with access to the County Jail's laundry room, to the "sweaty" DNA planting.
10) The folding then unfolding of the plates, leaving "male DNA" , connects a Male to the plate planting.
There was only one person who was the “Evidence Tech”, “Crime Scene Photographer”, “Patrol Officer”, “Search Party Member”, “Municipal Worker”, “ASY customer with an old truck”, “Correctional Officer”, and he is “Male”. Thus, the evidence trail leads to a single evidence planter.
CONTINUED...
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
DeleteDo you really expect she'd tweet the name associated to the warranty? What she's tweeting is battery detail that could have only been obtained via a trace.
I know via the correspondence Interstate also traced the batch shipment. The batch number is not marked on the battery, certainly not information provided by me, and it could only be obtained from Interstate.
The battery was clearly a Interstate direct ship with warranty directly with Interstate.
If the battery had been purchased at a retail location, the warranty sticker on top of the battery would have been punched by the retailer to denote month & year of purchase.
KZ appears to be creating a fear factor which I suspect is being done to hopes someone will flip. Once she presents the information to the courts the matter could be pursued criminally thereby too late to flip.
[–]NoahLCS
I agree. She clearly knows who, she isn't going to post it on Twitter before filing her brief.
[–]Irwin321
Do you think this was just an oversight on the person who switched the battery? Like they just forgot they had to switch it back to the original?
I just feel like I’d be switching the battery while muttering “switch it back”, driving the Rav to ASY muttering “switch it back”, etc. It seems like a glaring oversight considering the other steps taken to consent or taint evidence.
Any thoughts on this? My apologies if you have stated this already, I haven’t made my way through all of your posts on this yet.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
Oh, yeah, it was a big oversight! I highly doubt the person realized how uncommon a Group Size 58 battery is nor did they realized Interstate can trace their batteries.
The planters made a number of big mistakes, like not disturbing the smaller items on top of the bookcase and using a swab for the blood, when they were planting the evidence.
However, the battery is big gotcha, given tractability creates hard evidence establishing planting.
[–]disguisedeyes
They also simply didn't care. Small town, they ruled the roost. They never expected the case would get any attention. They could control the media narrative, and knew that the public would stop thinking as soon as they heard DNA evidence put sa blood in the RAV4. They did shoddy work because that was all that was required. They never expected making a murderer.
[–]hugepapajava
That's a great point! There's no way they could have ever in a million years imagined it would have gotten to this point.
[–]Tyroneshoolaces
a lot of your conclusions regarding the interstate battery are wrong. 99% of retailers do not punch those date codes out. it does not prove anything.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
Frankly, the only conclusions appearing "99%" wrong have been yours. Additionally, your conclusions appear based on misinformation being fed by someone using the name for a prostitute's customer.
Having checked my own replacement batteries: Those with warranty stickers are punched. Those with out warranty punch stickers have a orange dot sticker with 2 digit month followed by a "/" followed by 2 digit year. The batteries with the orange stickers happen to be batteries I had purchased at Walmarts and the batteries with punch sticker were purchased at a parts store. Subsequently, your conclusion appears without merit that was easily debunked.
There was only two ways for KZ to learn someone purchased a 75 month extended warranty on the non-RAV4 battery found in TH's RAV4:
1) The battery's owner came forward and told her.
2 ) She traced the battery with Interstate.
There is is over a "99%" chance the battery's owner didn't come forward and tell KZ thereby she most likely obtained the information from Interstate.
https://old.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/a5rs1r/new_zellner_tweet_battery/
[–]Irwin321
DeleteWow. I’ll have to go back and review the CASO report closer. Do you think others were aware? Was the person acting alone or under the direction of others? I have so many thoughts!
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
The person with the White Jeep had to know and I suspect the former Detroit PD Officer also knew. I wouldn't be surprised, given the level of corruption,if the former Detroit PD provided tips on evidence planting.
The thing is to keep a secret the information can't be shared with many people. If 10 people were involved in the planting than there are 10 possible leaks. The more people who know the higher the chance of a leak.
https://old.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/a5rs1r/new_zellner_tweet_battery/
[–]Goose1288
ReplyDeleteAs a retired Police Officer from Texas (retired as of 2016), I actually have a lot of issues regarding this case.
One issue concerns the interview/interrogation of BD. I was trained in the Reid Method of Interviews and Interrogation and utilizing the method properly I was able to get many confessions.
The problem with BD’s confession is his obvious lowered mental capacity and his lack of understanding the nature of the crime he was alleged to have committed. This was evident when he asked if he was going to be back in time to turn in a work assignment for school.
In Texas if a Juvenile was suspected of committing a crime they were read their Waiver of Juvenile Rights, which is basically “Miranda Rights” but for Juveniles. Parents were immediately contacted and were asked to come to the Police Department so that we could discuss the case and the evidence against their child.
No one talked to the Juvenile except to get the basic information such as Name, Date of Birth, Address, Phone Number of Parent(s) just the basic personal information was obtained from the Juvenile offender.
We would then hand the case over to a Juvenile Investigator who had been specially trained as to updated Juvenile laws and how to talk with Juveniles.
A lot of times as part of the investigation, prior to talking to the Juvenile suspect, I would speak with the School Resource Officer (SRO) in order to obtain more information about the suspect. Such as what kind of student he/she is. Do they have a lot of friends, are they having any trouble with anyone in the school and if they have any learning or general disabilities that I needed to be aware of prior to speaking with the suspect. A good SRO is a wealth of knowledge that can help you immensely in your investigation.
I cringe when I watch BD’s interview/interrogation because he was completely outwitted and overwhelmed by the two Detectives. I have no doubt that they were aware of his learning/general disabilities prior to their first interview/interrogation of him. They used this knowledge to their advantage and poor BD never had a clue.
The previous interviews were just to gain his trust and develop a relationship with him. The final interview you can tell that the Detectives are beginning to get frustrated that their plan didn’t go the way they thought it would. This is evident by one of the Detectives becoming annoyed and shouting out”who shot her in the head”? You don’t throw information like that out to suspect because it taints your confession. He threw they out there because he was tired, frustrated and annoyed.
As far as searches are concerned, yes you can go back multiple times, with a new Warrant when new information is obtained as it relates to the crime.
There are a couple of ways to go about searching a vehicle or property. These are done when you already have enough evidence to obtain a warrant but you try these measures in an attempt to speed up the process.
(1). Ask for consent. If consent is obtained then you have the individual sign a consent form which basically states that he/she is allowing you and other Officers to search you vehicle or your residence.
(2). If consent is not received then you tell the suspect that you believe there is evidence inside their vehicle or residence relating to the crime you are investigating and that they are not allowed to go back inside the vehicle or residence (so as to preserve the evidence) until a search warrant is obtained. Other Officers then enter the residence in order to secure it. This is done to make sure no other suspects are hiding inside the residence potentially destroying evidence. A search of the vehicle or residence does not occur until the search warrant is obtained. Most of the time the person will allow consent because they don’t want to have to wait a few hours while the warrant is being drafted and the signed by a Judge.
(3). Get a Warrant
CONTINUED...
If I’m not mistaken, here in Texas you have 3 days to execute the Warrant once it is signed by a Judge. After 3 days if the Warrant was not executed then you must apply for a new Warrant.
DeleteA Search Warrant Return will then be given to the Judge who signed the Warrant as to all the items of Evidence that were collected from the scene. This is usually done within 24 hours after clearing the scene.
So yes, a property can be searched multiple times but a new Search Warrant should be applied for and Issued in such cases.
From what I have seen regarding this case the thing that irks me the most is the lack of documentation regarding evidence.
(1). More documentation (photographs and detailed reports) was needed regarding finding bones in the burn pit, burn barrels and quarry.
(2). More documentation (photographs and detailed reports) was needed regarding loading and securing of the RAV 4 into the trailer. As well as unloading and unlocking the said vehicle.
Basically more detailed reports and more photographs were needed in almost every facet of this case.
Another one that really pisses me off is AC obviously lying on the stand when he is asked how he got TH’ s License Plate Number. From a Law Enforcement perspective, you know how and when you received information like that. It could have been something really mundane and innocent but to say “ I don’t remember” is a flat out lie.
Then when they play the audio of him calling in the plates to Dispatch and he states he doesn’t remember making that call. Then after hearing the message played in court, one of the Defense Lawyers asks AC if that was him and I believe his response was “if you say so” or something to that effect.
I would be ashamed and embarrassed to be working in the same Department with this liar.
Anyway that’s just my thoughts. I’m sure there are other LEO’s that may have a different opinion on this matter, but from what I’ve seen of the handling of this case it saddens me to think there are still corrupt and inept Law Enforcement Officers on Patrol today.
A large majority of LEO’s are honest and truthful and I was proud and I’m still proud to have served with all of them, but it’s the small amount of cases such as this that leave a stain on all of Law Enforcement.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/a5pcv0/what_do_other_officers_think_about_this_case/
If the top personnel of the Department you work for (Chief or Sheriff) are corrupt, then it’s not hard for others of low moral character to follow along.
ReplyDelete[–]Give_It_A_Toss
Then when they play the audio of him calling in the plates to Dispatch and he states he doesn’t remember making that call. Then after hearing the message played in court, one of the Defense Lawyers asks AC if that was him and I believe his response was “if you say so” or something to that effect.
In the call he seems pretty serious and nervous when the dispatcher tries to banter with him. Tone of voice and body language throughout the whole case is pretty telling IMO.
What are your thoughts about SA's DNA found in the vehicle and lack of prints for SA? How plausible do you find it that it was planted?
[–]Goose1288
It was planted. For someone to be actively bleeding means they were not wearing any gloves. The amount of places he had to touch once inside the vehicle he should have left prints or more blood.
Theoretically there should have been blood or prints underneath the door handle to open the drivers side door. Same for the drivers seat adjuster. I don’t know if TH’s was electrical or manual but I’m guessing SA was not the same height as TH, therefore he must have had to adjusted the drivers seat to sit down and drive the vehicle.
Prints and or blood should have been found on the hand brake. Gear shift and steering wheel. Same for the inside hood latch.
What I don’t get is why didn’t they fume for any prints. If you have already swabbed areas for potential DNA and dusted for prints but were unable to find any, why not fume items that may potentially hold viable prints such as the inside hood latch, remove it and fume it.
If KZ were to get her hands on that broken light, I would hope she would fume it and swab it for DNA. Something’s telling me there is a wealth of information on that light.
[–]JonnyDotNet
Thanks for your valuable input and service to your community! In your view, if the blood was planted, which is the more likely scenario:
Planted by the killer (assuming he in not LE)
Planted by another civilian with a grudge
Planted by LE in the field
Planted in the crime lab by an unscrupulous employee
To me it is telling that there was such a big fuss about no-one going near that car when it was found or attempting to unlock it and there are no pictures of the inside through the windows. They are looking for a missing person for goodness sake, wouldn't they just jimmy the lock and check for clues of her whereabouts since time is of the essence in these kind of cases. Also, it seems to me that there must have been some expertise in forensics to be able to plant that blood...
CONTINUED...
[–]Goose1288
DeleteI believe either 3 or 4 are the most reasonable assumptions.
No expertise need to plant the blood. A few drops here a few drops there that’s all you need.
As far as not opening the vehicle immediately to search for evidence related to the missing person. You have to remember up to this point they did not know if she was alive or dead and had only been reported missing.
Once the vehicle was found their best course of action is to preserve the vehicle and get a search warrant to enter the vehicle and search for evidence.
Now, if they had exigent circumstances to enter the vehicle on scene, such as seeing some body part or blood inside the vehicle then I believe the case could be made to enter the vehicle without a Warrant.
If they had entered the vehicle without a warrant and without exigent circumstances then there is a possibility that any evidence obtained from this search could considered fruit of the poisonous tree and could not be used or entered into evidence.
Without any proof or information that any crime had/has occurred it is always best to get a warrant.
[–]Goose1288
I know at crime scenes you don’t want to contaminate any evidence, I know that a lot of times looking through darkened glass with a flashlight you have to almost place your face against the glass to get a good look inside. You can still see inside without having to be that close but the item that you are looking at may not be that clear.
I can understand them not seeing the blood in the rear area of the vehicle but the blood by the ignition should have easily been visible from the passenger side window.
[–]Lonely_Crouton
oh! adjust seat position due to different driver height!
[–]Goose1288
Yep. SA has a gut. Even if those two were approximate in height we would still want to adjust the seat back further from the steering wheel.
The steering wheel lock (to raise or lower the steering wheel) was never tested to my knowledge. Possibly DNA or prints could be located on that.
[–]Goose1288
As far as AC’s tone while speaking with the Dispatcher it is hard to say if he was nervous and or serious while speaking with the Dispatcher. Without sitting down and talking to the guy one on one I have no baseline to judge his tone or demeanor.
I can tell you that I have worked with people like AC in my Military and LE career and he appears to be sycophant without a conscience. Someone who is willing to do and say whatever his superiors or boss wants without hesitation. Someone who wants to be more than what he is and will do whatever needs to be done in order to please his superiors.
CONTINUED...
[–]MnAtty
DeleteI’m so glad you commented here on the Reid Technique. I appreciate knowing that use of this method is not always improper.
I like to watch Homicide Hunter, because it’s the only true crime series I still have confidence in, after seeing what a smear job Dateline did in the Avery case.
I can’t remember what episode, but I’m pretty sure Kenda alluded to the Reid Technique one time. He said something to the effect, that it’s useful to push an uncooperative witness, saying a little bullying helps the person face their own guilt. It sounded like the Reid Technique is supposed to be used to get guilty people to acknowledge guilt, rather than trick innocent persons into false confessions. It must be a powerful investigative tool, that in the wrong hands, becomes an abuse of power.
I don’t know if you are familiar with the Fox Hills motel/resort episode in the Dassey case. Wiegert and Fassbender took Barb and Brendan to stay overnight at Fox Hills, claiming the two were in danger if they stayed at ASY.
Of course, the next day the investigators lost all interest in protecting Barb and Brendan. I’m guessing the entire thing was a ruse to isolate Brendan and his mother. Barb was threatened that if she left Fox Hills before they were finished, they would arrest her on a pending marijuana charge.
Then, Wiegert and Fassbender conducted an unrecorded interview/interrogation of Brendan at Fox Hills, claiming that because the recording device had a low battery, they had no choice in the matter. I’m convinced they intentionally groomed Brendan that night, so he would sound more knowledgeable when he was prompted to give details of the murder during later recorded sessions.
I noticed you characterized it as a misstep based on frustration, when they fed Brendan details about the shot to the head. I can’t be so charitable, because I think the entirety of their interactions with Brendan precludes characterizing their misconduct as unintentional or well-intended.
The further complication we are still dealing with, is that Exhibit FL, the bullet which supposedly passed through Teresa’s skull, has no trace bone evidence. It helped to follow along as they filmed the electron microscope screen during MaM2. There were no particles of phosphorus, a necessary element to support a finding of the presence of bone matter. Instead, the surface was covered with wood and plywood particles, indicating it had gone through a wall at some point.
So I don’t know what’s left of Wiegert’s and Fassbender’s introduction of the “bullet to the brain” ideation during Brendan’s interrogation. They weren’t so much introducing a fact, as they were introducing parts of their own false narrative. They must have known at the time, the entire bullet story was made up.
I can appreciate your disappointment with members of law enforcement involved in this case. I’m pretty disappointed with some of the attorneys as well. Like Shakespeare said, “the first thing we must do is kill all the lawyers.”
[–]MaxMathematician
I noticed you characterized it as a misstep based on frustration, when they fed Brendan details about the shot to the head. I can’t be so charitable, because I think the entirety of their interactions with Brendan precludes characterizing their misconduct as unintentional or well-intended.
This. He was groomed to the hilt but the poor boy hadn't the ability to memorize all the particulars. They were frustrated because he wasn't saying what they had told him to say.
CONTINUED...
[–]Goose1288
DeleteIt’s all about timing. If the vehicle were found 1-2 days after the person went missing, I think the case could be made that exigent circumstances would exist to enter the vehicle without a warrant.
5 or 6 days later I think you are better off getting a warrant, preserving the evidence and doing a detailed and through examination of the vehicle. Detailed report and lots of photographs.[–]vermeerish
They effectively dug his grave when they said this to him. At that point, he was trying so hard to please them and was just going along with whatever they said.
[–]Goose1288
In my opinion the bullet is bullshit. In the last department I worked for in Texas before retiring we had numerous vehicular accidents involving Deer. Once on the scene the Deer has to be put down.
I carried around a Ruger .22 caliber long rifle just for these incidents. I Dispatched lots of Deer throughout my career, most of the time involved me walking right up to the Deer (because it was in such bad shape after being hit by a vehicle) placing the barrel of my .22 rifle against the head of the Deer and squeezing the trigger.
I cannot recall one time out of any of those incidents ever having the .22 caliber bullet travel through the other side of the Deers skull.
I believe they said in MAM2 that it wasn’t brought to the juries attention or maybe the jury wasn’t reminded by SA Defense Team that when you live in the Country it’s not uncommon to find shell casings or bullet fragments in all sorts of weird places.
The bullet fragments in the garage sound to me to be more along the lines of kids or uneducated adults shooting at a thin target (paper or a small piece of wood ) for target practice and not being aware that the bullet will travel through those thin items and into the garage.
In the country you make your own fun and a lot of times that involves shooting at targets or small animals with a .22 caliber rifle. So it makes sense that spent .22 caliber shells and bullet fragments were found on that property. I don’t believe this point was elaborated enough to the jury.
As far as the Reid Technique is concerned, yes it is a very good tool to have and when used properly the results are amazing. However, when you are dealing with a person with a low IQ such as BD then it is very easy to manipulate and coerce a confession.
You must establish a relationship with the subject prior to interviewing/interrogating him/her. You must observe their mannerisms when answering easy truthful everyday questions not associated with the crime you are investigating. This could take a few minutes up to an hour depending on how comfortable the interviewer feels he/she can gauge the truthfulness or deceptiveness of the suspects answers.
If done properly you can easily tell if the suspect is being truthful or deceptive. This method can also clear or eliminate people as suspects depending how well of a relationship the interviewer established with the individual prior to questioning.
BD is in jail because of the unscrupulous and unethical way he was interviewed and interrogated by those two Detectives.
Well if you consider the bullet “physical evidence” then none. No DNA of TH in SA trailer or in the Garage. No hair of TH’s that BD claimed he cut off was ever found. Many follow up questions could/should have been asked in order to confirm BD confession.
Thank you for understanding that not all LEO’s are bad. Trust me when I tell you that we know who the bad ones are but catching them is an entirely different story.
We want them gone and locked up just as bad if not more than anyone else because of their actions it shines a negative light on the entire force.
CONTINUED...
[–]Goose1288
DeleteI don’t think the entire Sheriff’s Office is corrupt. I believe that any and all evidence that was planted or fabricated was done so by a small group of individuals within that Department. You are not going to risk involving a bunch of people in said crime because the risk of one or more individuals “turning” or developing a conscience is too great a risk.
You would keep your numbers small and only involve individuals that you have worked with for years that you can trust. More than likely these individuals have done this before so they know that each person can be trusted to keep their mouth shut and stick to the plan. Because they are aware if one goes down, they all go down.
So in my opinion the number of people involved is small. I would say a maximum of 6 and a minimum of at least 3.
I think the rest of the Department has some idea of what went on but can’t prove it and who the individuals players are. The rest are just oblivious or don’t care.
It’s not uncommon for family members to arrive on your scene, in fact it’s almost expected.
[–]Goose1288
I was always cautious and aware that a lot of convicts are very convincing into making you believe they are innocent. You have to be aware that they are almost always playing an angle and watching your every move.
When it comes to SA, I’m not saying the guy was a Saint. He definitely has his issues but one thing about him really sticks out to me. When he knew he did wrong he always admitted his guilt. When he was wrongly accused he proclaimed his innocence and never once took a plea to admit guilt to get out early. He waited proclaiming his innocence until the scales of Justice finally tipped in his favor.
This case is very much the same. He is proclaiming his innocence and I personally believe him.
[–]Ccraig75
I’d like an officers input on my the coroner wasn’t allowed on the scene or be a part of the investigation? Also why would LE find it not important to photograph their findings in the burn pit?
[–]Goose1288
I can’t really answer that because I never worked for a large Department where you had a Coroner that you would call to the scene of a Homicide.
On any and all Deaths that I worked we would call a Justice of the Peace (JP) to the scene to pronounce the individual dead and request an Autopsy if the circumstances required one.
I have worked a few Homicides (but I’m no Joe Kenda) and all I can say is document, document, document. Write very detailed and thorough reports and photograph the shit out of that crime scene. You only get one chance to get it right on the scene to document everything as it was upon your arrival. Once you clear the scene you are left with your report and your photographs, so always document the hell out of the scene.
I find it highly suspicious that if you normally had an on call Coroner that you had worked with numerous times before in the past without any issues, why would you deviate from the normal procedure and not allow that person on the scene.
CONTINUED...
[–]Grassroots112
DeleteI was gonna bring this up in a post not long after my encounter with a UK police officer a few months back while on holiday, but didn’t quite think it was worthy of a new thread so I’m pleased somoene has created such a thread where I think my encounter and what we talked about may be of some value in terms of a wider debate if not this actual case and also an insight into policing here in the UK against policing in the US.
Anyway, while on holiday a few months back, I got talking to a fellow Brit who happened to be a police officer....
We initially got talking through our love of football (or soccer) and our kids were of a similar age so played together. Over the course of a week we would talk about all kinds of things, mainly football as stated, our kids and moreso the rise of crime in the UK which is seemingly out of control, but in my own opinion, nowhere near as bad as is made out or any worse than in the past.
One day I asked him what he thought about MAM and if he had watched it, he said he hadn’t, but was aware about some of the issues raised that made the police force in the US look bad. I told him he should give it a watch if he could, but got the impression its not his cup of tea despite his own job.
Anyway I tried to fill him in on a few things and what I thought and we talked about all kinds of things pertaining to this case such as corruption and it was reassuring to hear a police officer from my own country who works for a rather large force, inform me that corruption and rouge cops is very rare, here in the UK anyway, even within small forces, and those ho do operate in such a way usually get found out quickly and brought to task. He spoke as a street bobby and as a member of the general rank and file of police officers by the way and was obviously biased, but I found him sincere and took his words at face value.
He said where corruption does occur most is higher up in government and with officials in charge of police forces and usually in the form of coverups regarding sensitive political cases or budget control and finances rather than lower down the chain with the force and it’s officers.
When we talked about police planting evidence he said in the UK most forces and their officers do things by the book, but higher up the chain when a case is handed over to another agency or a branch of detectives for example, that’s where planting can occur. But again rarely due to the many many layers of protocols and advances in technology.
He said there is a misconception by the general public who think officers are tied down with red tape and as such are prevented from carrying out actual police work because they have to spend so much time writing out reportsand such which I specifically put forward because that’s what I thought. But it appears they prefer it that way these days and with new technology allowing body cams, in car video recording and things like tablets to record reports rather than writing them down, it’s helping them a lot more and he said makes it even harder for criminals to try and get away with things or their defence to use certain loop holes to get them off.
He said there is no excuse in this day and age to not record, catalogue and do due diligence when it comes to crime scenes, evidence, chain of custody, interviews and just basically carrying out general police duties in a professional and effective manner using all the technology available, even for smaller forces on smaller budgets.
He said by logging and documenting everything and doing things by the book it protects themselves and their force as much as the public in terms of their own safety and the public’s safety, provides transparency and assists the prosecution in court a lot more should a case go to trial.
CONTINUED...
We also talked about prosecutors and he said they rely on the police, detectives and crime labs to do their job well enough so they go into a trial or a courtroom with confidence and in the main to basically bring all of that good police work together to deliver justice and trust in the police, but a lot don’t care about how evidence is collected, whether it was planted or not or reports, as long as whatever they go with they can make stick and doesn’t make them look a fool in court, the win being all that matters really.
DeleteI got the impression this particular officer didn’t have a great deal of respect for prosecutors or lawyers in general and defence lawyers even less who might get their client a better deal, but don’t help the police at all who can have someone bang to rights for stealing a car and charge him/her accordingly, but that someone thanks to their defence and contacts end up taking the wrap for stealing cars others stole so any investigation into them or such crimes closes.
He said no police officer wants that, but the courts, prosecution, lawyers and those higher up care more about numbers and convictions.
We talked a lot about the rising crime in England and he said it’s down to poverty, poor education, broken homes and a generation of kids who when they fall into a life of crime and drugs, can’t get off because the system won’t alow them. I agreed.
He said he has almost friend like relationships with a lot of young kids he arrests and while a crime is a crime, he says they are not bad people and he would much rather put the real bad people behind bars who bring the drugs and guns into society and those who make it impossible for these people to get jobs, better education etc. and not have to go after the same people all the time for the same crimes.
I’m paraphrasing a lot and there was loads we talked about in general. Overall I was heartened and for true police officers especially here in the UK, they do a great job and that our system is quite good, but higher up good police officers like this particular bloke are wasted when they are nicking the same person over and over again for petty crimes that they commit because as a society, that’s the role they are reduced to, a life of crime to feed a habit, put food on the table etc.
For a lot of them he said, their life in prison is much better than their life outside and that’s very sad and says a hell of a lot more about society than those as individuals or our police force and legal system.
CONTINUED...
[–]Goose1288
DeleteI was Stationed in Lakenheath England from 94-96. I was always in awe of the fact that the Police (Bobbies) didn’t carry weapons and that for the most part the criminals would comply with the demands of the Officer.
Most of the interactions I saw with the Police were in smaller towns where the Officers knew the suspect or offender so if that person refused to comply they already knew who they were and where they lived.
He is right about the corruption aspect but you have to remember that here in the states if the top personnel of the Department you work for (Chief or Sheriff) if they are corrupt then it’s not hard for others of low moral character to follow along.
[–]Goose1288
Yep exactly. IMO, AC was too scared to go speak with GZ alone. Even if he had spoken with him and documented his conversation with him nothing of value would have learned. I believe it would have looked something like this.
AC: Good evening Sir. I was wanting to ask you some questions regar...
GZ: I never saw that girl or had nothing to do with her damn Murder (slams door in AC face).
AC: Ok Sir, thank you for your time. (BIG Sigh...) Glad that’s done, looks like we can scratch him off the suspect list.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/a5pcv0/what_do_other_officers_think_about_this_case/