* Wisconsin Bell was acquired by Cingular in 1999, then Cingular acquired AT&T from 2004-2006, and in 2006 Cingular dropped the Cingular name and adopted the AT&T name instead (operating as one company versus two).
A bartender who was an acquaintance of Kelly Pitzen called CASO dispatch and said that Kelly and Teresa were at his bar in Stockbridge around midnight on Saturday, 10/29/05.
UPDATE NOVEMBER 16, 2017: Kathleen Zellner filed a "Second Supplement to Previously Filed Motion for Reconsideration" on November 16, 2017.
Attached as "Exhibit A" (page 106) is a "minutes used" report of Teresa Halbach's cell phone activity, obtained by Teresa's friends when they accessed her Cingular account online at 5:49 PM on November 3, 2005 (incoming calls that went to voice mail do not appear on this report).
The "minutes used" report (image below) lists outgoing calls to Denise Coakley, Dan Morrow and George Zipperer, as well as an incoming call from Steven Speckman, which are not listed on the 2017 AT&T report.
That was how my calls would show on my bill when I would forward a business line to my cell...
The "minutes used" report that was printed from Teresa's Cingular account online (image above) wouldn’t show calls that went directly to voicemail because the messages don’t use minutes unless you call from your cell to listen.
Corporal Leslie Lemieux of the Calumet County Sheriff's Office wrote in her activity report for November 3rd: "Scott and several of their mutual friends had located Teresa's most recent cell phone activity report on her computer. They printed a copy for us, which showed the last cell phone activity at 2:27 p.m. on Monday, 10/31/05. It appeared when looking at the minutes used history that Teresa had made phone calls to each of her appointments prior to her arrival that day."
Attached as "Exhibit D" is a sworn affidavit from Steven Speckman.
The following is his affidavit, signed June 27, 2017 (page 96).
In 2005, I lived in Sheboygan, Wisconsin.
I have reviewed a page from Teresa Halbach's phone records, labeled and incorporated in this affidavit as Exhibit A. I recognize my phone number, 920-254-6635, in the fifth row from the top of the list of calls on Exhibit A, which also indicates that the call took place at 12:44 on October 31, 2005. My memory has been refreshed by reviewing Exhibit A; I called Teresa at 12:44 p.m. on October 31, 2005.
I did not personally know Teresa Halbach and never spoke to her prior to October 31, 2005. Several days before October 31, 2005, I contacted AutoTrader and inquired about advertising vehicles I had for sale.
On October 31, 2005, I called Teresa Halbach at 12:44 p.m. to cancel or reschedule my appointment to have photographs of the vehicles I was considering advertising in AutoTrader taken. The conversation I had with Teresa lasted several minutes, during which Teresa was making an effort to reschedule my appointment for that same day but at a time that worked for both of us. At one point in our conversation, Teresa told me that she was looking at her calendar to determine her availability.
During our conversation on October 31, 2005, Teresa told me that she was currently in the Sheboygan area handling other appointments in or around Sheboygan. I recall that Teresa told me that she either had just finished an appointment in Sheboygan or was heading to her last appointment in Sheboygan.
In an effort to reschedule my appointment into her schedule on October 31, 2005, Teresa told me she would be available to meet within the next thirty minutes or so to handle my appointment. Teresa said that after that time, she would be leaving the Sheboygan area and we would have to reschedule for another day.
I was unable to meet with Teresa within thirty minutes of our conversation, so she could complete my appointment that day. We ended the conversation by agreeing to reconnect on a later date to schedule a time for her to photograph the vehicles I was thinking about advertising in AutoTrader.
One of the exhibits is a sworn affidavit from Denise Coakley Heitl, who Teresa called 11:35 a.m. on October 31, 2005. This call is on the faxed Cingular pre-bill but not on the AT&T report generated in 2017.
The following is Denise's affidavit, signed June 23, 2017 (page 150 of the exhibits).
Teresa Halbach took senior portraits of my son in Fall 2005. I didn't personally know Teresa and this was the first time I had hired her to take photos. To the best of my recollection, a co-worker referred me to Teresa.
Before October 31, 2005, Teresa had called me to let me know that the prints were ready to be picked up and to ask that I call her back to set up a time for me to pick them up. I called Teresa back on October 31, 2005, and wound up leaving her a voice message.
She called me back a little later on October 31, 2005, and told me that we could schedule a time for me to pick up the pictures. My recollection is that she called me around 11:30 a.m. on October 31, 2005. I have reviewed a page from Ms. Halbach's telephone records, labeled Exhibit A and attached and incorporated to this affidavit. I recognize my telephone number, 920-360-2455, line 19, at 11:35:13 a.m. My memory is refreshed by reviewing Exhibit A that my conversation with Ms. Halbach occurred at 11:35 a.m. on October 31, 2005. At that point, she told me that she was driving but that she would pull over to check her calendar before scheduling my appointment. She said she worked for a car magazine taking photos of cars and she was on her way to an appointment. She didn't say where she was going or who she was meeting.
During our conversation on October 31, 2005, at 11:35 a.m., Teresa checked her calendar and we scheduled an appointment for the following day at her studio in Green Bay for me to pick up the pictures. I went to the studio in Green Bay on November 1. Teresa did not show up for my appointment with her. While I was waiting for Teresa, an older man who I took to be Teresa's boss at the studio, showed up, and I told him that I had an appointment with Teresa to pick up pictures. I remember that he commented that it was strange that Teresa missed my appointment. He found the pictures and gave them to me.
Later, I was interviewed by the police. I don't remember the date of the interview, but I know it was before Steven Avery's trial. One detective interviewed me at work. I can't remember the name of the office or which agency he was from. I told him all the information contained in this affidavit. That was the only contact I had with law enforcement that I can remember. I was not contacted by law enforcement to appear at Steven Avery's trial as a witness.
UPDATE JUNE 15, 2017: The image at the top of this blog post is a markup of a snapshot taken of a page from Exhibit 72 of the motion for post-conviction relief that Kathleen Zellner filed on June 7, 2017 (click here for the image before the markup). This report of Teresa Halbach's cell phone records was generated by AT&T on February 20, 2017 (Cingular purchased AT&T in 2005 and launched the transition of the Cingular brand to AT&T in 2007).
There are discrepancies when comparing the facsimile of the Cingular pre-bill entered into evidence at Steven Avery's trial (Exhibit 361) and the 2017 report subpoened from AT&T. Most glaringly, two calls used to establish the State's timeline for October 31st are listed only on the faxed 2005 Cingular pre-bill (and not the subpoened 2017 AT&T report):
1. the outgoing call to Zipperer at 2:12 p.m., and
2. the 2:27 p.m. incoming (or outgoing) call (Dawn Pliszka of AutoTrader testified that Teresa called her at 2:27 and told her that she was on her way to Avery's).
The following is a summary of discrepancies with the 2005 facsimile of the Cingular pre-bill.
There are 10 calls on the 2005 Cingular pre-bill (which starts with an incoming call at 6:05 PM on 10/30/05) that are not listed on the 2017 AT&T report.
Five calls on 10/30/05 are not listed on the AT&T report:
10/30/05, Time Stamp 08:00:18 AM, Duration 02:33
10/30/05, Time Stamp 08:05:42 AM, Duration 01:57
10/30/05, Time Stamp 11:44:05 AM, Duration 00:35, lists as outgoing call to 920-420-1740
10/30/05, Time Stamp 11:44:48 AM, Duration 01:09, lists as outgoing call to 920-420-1740
10/30/05, Time Stamp 05:40:15 PM, Duration 01:17, lists as outing call to 920-662-0127
Five calls on 10/31/05 are not listed on the AT&T report:
10/31/05, Time Stamp 11:31:55 AM, Duration 03:04, lists as outgoing call to 920-405-1998 (Dan Morrow)
10/31/05, Time Stamp 11:35:13 AM, Duration 01:36, lists as outing call to 920-360-2455 (Denise Coakley)
10/31/05, Time Stamp 12:45:12 PM, Duration 03:00, listed on Wiegert and Dedering's reports as incoming at 12:44 p.m. from 920-254-6635, plus Kratz, in his Offer of Proof, says this call is from Steven Speckman at 12:44 p.m. However, according to the toll-free numbers report in Zellner's motion, Speckman called AutoTrader from the number 920-254-6635 at 12:43 p.m., and the call lasted 1.1 minute. Perhaps this is why Kratz uses the time stamp 12:45 on the doctored Cingular pre-bill rather than the 12:44 time stamp in Wiegert's and Dedering's reports and in Kratz's own Offer of Proof.
10/31/05, Time Stamp 02:12:19 PM, Duration 01:09, lists as outgoing call to Zipperer
10/31/05, Time Stamp 02:27:16 PM, Duration 04:45, Wiegert and Kratz claim at 2:27 p.m. there was an incoming call from Dawn Pliszka at AutoTrader (Wiegert wrote a four-page report of his activity for November 3rd, but we don't know when he wrote it or what day it was filed because it is an undated report, as are all the investigative reports released to the public by the Calumet County sheriff's office in 2016).
Concerning the 12:45 p.m. incoming call on the faxed 2005 Cingular pre-bill, there is a "Steve in Sheboygan" in Teresa's day planner for October 31st (PC-exhibit 45) who had two vehicles he wanted photographed, including a large moving truck:
"Steve Sheboygan, Monday, 4 ft long moving truck, 2 vehicles"
An AutoTrader employee named Rachel was interviewed by DCI agent Neil McGrath on December 1, 2005. Rachel claimed that Steven Avery called AutoTrader on November 3 and that she spoke to him at this time.
The following is an excerpt from a report about McGrath's interview with Rachel:
"RACHAEL recalled speaking with an individual who identified himself as STEVE AVERY on approximately Thursday 11/03/2005... AVERY told RACHAEL that he had an appointment for a van and a truck to be photographed on 10/31/2005, however he had contacted HALBACH on that day to see if she was still coming and she told him that she was heading in a different direction. AVERY told RACHAEL that HALBACH instructed him to contact the office to reschedule the appointment."
Rachel told a different story a month earlier. Rachel called CASO on November 4, 2006 (CASO page 38) to report a rumor that "Dawn overheard" Steven Avery called AutoTrader on November 3.
The following is an excerpt from Dedering's report on his contact with Rachel:
"Someone named DAWN who works at AUTO TRADER stated she had overheard that STEVEN AVERY had called on yesterday's date (11/03/05) between 4:30 and 5:00 p.m. approximately, because STEVEN needed to reschedule the appointment with the photographer."
According to Zellner in her "Proof of Guilt" challenge, Scott Bloedorn called Steven Speckman at 4:10 PM on 11/3, the "Steve" from Teresa's day planner.
Speckman may have called AutoTrader on 11/3 and told whoever answered the phone that he didn't appreciate being accused of doing something, and this person could have mistaken him for Steven Avery. The "Steve" who called AutoTrader on 11/3/05 was not Steve Avery, per his phone records.
Concerning the 2:27 p.m. incoming call on the faxed 2005 Cingular pre-bill: Wiegert and Kratz claim that Dawn Pliszka called Teresa and spoke to her for almost five minutes. However, Dawn told Wiegert on November 3, 2005 that she thought she left a message for Teresa on the afternoon of October 31st. When Dawn testified at Avery's trial in February 2007, she said Teresa called her at 2:27 on October 31st (rather than her calling Teresa).
A search for 414-425-8712, the 2:27 p.m. incoming call, on truepeoplesearch.com indicates that this number is/was a landline belonging to a household, not AutoTrader. There are actually two different households it could have belonged to at some point.
Wiegert's reports about 414-425-8712:
"The last phone call listed on TERESA's account would have been on 10/31/05 at 2:27 p.m. It indicates it is an incoming phone call from xxx-xxx-8712. In doing a reverse directory on that phone number, it came back to AUTO TRADER magazine."
"I informed ANGELA we were reviewing TERESA's phone records and there was an incoming call at 2:27 p.m. on 10/31/05 from the phone number of xxx-xxx-8712, the AUTO TRADER magazine. "
Dedering's report about 414-425-8712:
"I was unable to get any information from the lnternet on the last incoming call xxx-xxx-8712."
The November 5th phone call between Wiegert and Remiker about the 2:27 PM call:
Remiker: Avery says he believes 2 or 2:30.
Wiegert: From there we believe she goes to Zipperer's. Zipperer is apparently not real good on time.
Remiker: Yeah...[laughs]...yeah.
Wiegert: And that's the last time anyone has seen her; she has a cell phone call at 2:24 which it appears she had answered; there's one at 2:27 which is incoming [recording appears to be edited here] got or not went to voicemail, talking to the person down at auto magazine... she says... "I think that was me, I left her a message" but didn't know what time it was.
Remiker: What time did Dedering get off the caller ID at Zipperer’s place that she called; do you remember what time that was?
Wiegert: Hold on, I've got this right here; okay, I'm back; there's a call placed to Zipperer's at 2:12 p.m. on Monday.
Remiker: Okay.
Wiegert: So I'm assuming that's the one she probably left a voicemail there.
Remiker: Probably...right…. before she got there?
Wiegert: Yeah the last call, 2:27, that's an incoming one, which we believe just went to voicemail (inaudible), which is five minutes long. Um, and that's it; after that, we got nothin'; so between 2:12 and 2:27...that's it....she disappears.
Remiker: Did Dedering get those phone records for tower locations and stuff.
Wiegert: Yeah, but I don't have them, he grabbed them and then went back up to the house to check on the fax machine.
Remiker: Okay, so you don't know what that last phone call... what tower went off or anything?
Schuster stated that Teresa Halbach had scheduled appointments on Monday, 10/31/2005 with George Zipper [sic], 4433 CTH B, Manitowoc, Wisconsin, telephone number 920-682-5719 for a Pontiac Firebird, Craig Sippel, N253 Highway A, New Holstein, Wisconsin, telephone number 920-753-5676 for a 1955 Ford Thunderbird (however, the appointment had been rescheduled); and B. Janda, 12930A Avery Road, Two Rivers, Wisconsin, 54241, telephone number 920-755-8715 for a 1989 Dodge mini-van. The appointment for B. Janda was made on Monday, 10/31/2005, after an individual called into the office attempting to arrange the appointment. Schuster believed that the receptionist at the office, Dawn Pliszka, contacted Halbach in the field and arranged for Halbach to shoot the appointment on Avery Road. Schuster stated there is also a possibility that Halbach had other appointments that she would have arranged on her own and Schuster would not be aware of these appointments until Halbach faxed in her appointment report the following day.
Schuster believes that Pliszka attempted to call Halbach on her cell phone and left her a message about the appointment. Halbach later called back and Pliszka was out to lunch. In the afternoon Halbach did make contact with Pliszka and they spoke on the phone around 2:27 p.m. Schuster stated that she believes the call took place at 2:27 p.m. because she had spoken to a Manitowoc County Detective named Mark [Wiegert], who advised Schuster of the time that the call had taken place.
There are two numbers on the 2005 faxed Cingular pre-bill that do not appear at all on the 2017 AT&T: report:
920-360-2455 (Coakley)
920-682-5719 (Zipperer)
A call to 920-420-1740 lists as ONE INCOMING call at 6:05:13 p.m. (duration 00:04) on October 29th on the 2017 AT&T report but lists as TWO OUTGOING calls near midnight on the 2005 Cingular pre-bill:
10/29/2005, time stamp 11:44:05, duration 00:35
10/29/2005, time stamp 11:44:48, duration 01:09
Other problems with the 2005 Cingular pre-bill:
10/30/05, time stamp 04:41:27, duration 00:55, shows as outgoing when AT&T says it was incoming
10/30/05, time stamp 05:40:15, duration 01:17, lists as OUTGOING call to 920-663-0127 on 2005 Cingular pre-bill but lists as an INCOMING call about an earlier, at 04:41:27, on the 2017 AT&T report
Time stamp discrepancies for outgoing calls on the 2005 Cingular pre-bill:
920-585-3839, Unknown ID, 00:37 on 2005 report versus 00:02 on 2017 report
920-740-1900, Unknown ID, 00:54 on 2005 report versus 00:42 on 2017 report
920-755-8715, B. Janda, 01:05 on 2005 report versus 00:42 on 2017 report
920-894-3912, S. Schmitz, 00:46 on 2005 report versus 00:34 on 2017 report
Note that every call on the 2017 AT&T report is accounted for on the 2005 Cingular pre-bill (but there are some discrepancies such as duration of
call, whether it was incoming or outgoing, etc.).
-- END JUNE 15, 2017 UPDATE --
November 6, 2005 RAW Interview with Steven Avery | NBC26
Per Teresa Halbach's Cingular pre-bill, tower 2110 processed two incoming calls to her cell phone on the afternoon of October 31, 2005. The first call was at 1:52 p.m. (the caller left a voicemail message), and the second call was 49 minutes later, at 2:41
p.m. (the caller also left a voicemail message). The 2:41 p.m. call was the last call to be received by Teresa's phone while it was still powered on and registered.
According to a motion filed by Avery's attorney, Kathleen Zellner on August 26, 2016, Teresa's "last call forwarded message at 2:41 p.m," and this call pinged off a tower in Whitelaw, WI, "which was approximately 13.1 miles from Avery's."
Zellner wrote:
"Ms. Halbach had an appointment to take photos of vehicles at the Avery
salvage yard for the magazine on October 31, 2005. Ms. Halbach
disappeared after she completed her assignment and left the Avery
salvage yard. Her last call forwarded message at 2:41 p.m., occurred
when her cellphone was still powered on and registered.That call pinged
off the Whitelaw Tower, which was approximately 13.1 miles from
the Avery Salvage Yard."
The image below shows the location of a cell tower at 7500 Village Drive, one of three cell towers with structure addresses in Whitelaw, WI. Per Google maps, the tower at 7500 Village Drive is 11.3, 12.1 or 15.9 road miles from 12930 Avery Road, not 13.1 miles. This would lead us to believe that the tower at 7500 Village Drive in Whitelaw is not tower 2110, the tower that processed Teresa's 2:41 p.m. incoming call, per Zellner.
The three towers with Whitelaw addresses are circled in red in the image above (they may or may not be Cingular towers). The tower at the intersection of County Road J and Route 10 is 17 to 19 road miles from 12930 Avery Road; however, it looks to be about 13 air miles from 12930 Avery Road based on the "radius around point map" below.
The following image shows the 13.1 radius from Avery's home at 12930 Avery Road in Two Rivers, WI.
"It’s absolutely shocking to see cellphone records that were part of the
discovery that were turned over to the defense...document her route
leaving the property. She goes back the same way she came; she’s 12
miles from the property on the last ping. They screwed
it up.” - Kathleen Zellner, Newsweek, March 29, 2016
Zellner says she’ll argue Avery’s conviction should be overturned
because of ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that lawyers Dean
Strang and Jerry Buting bungled Avery’s defense by not arguing that
Halbach’s cellphone records show she left Avery’s property alive. “It’s
really hard to figure out how in the world did the defense not seize on
this. It would have created reasonable doubt.” -
Kathleen Zellner, Newsweek, April 8, 2016
The image below shows the cell towers near Zipperer's home (just south of the intersection at Route 310 and County Road B) and the dates they were constructed. It also shows the unregistered towers in the area, one being directly north of Zipperer's (below Shoto on County Road B). This is the structure that lines up with a map grabbed from the photo of Zellner's office floor in a Newsweek article published on March 29, 2016.
The following is the photo from the Newsweek article about Zellner dated March 29, 2016.
In the image above there is a map of tower locations and compass directions among the documents on Zellner's office floor. The following is a rotated and enlarged image of the map grabbed from the photo.
In the image below, the enlarged and rotated map is overlaid onto a Google map of the area (credit goes to schmuck_next_door, mrchaddavis, Ductit and lonecrow66 at Reddit).
The map below shows the cell site locations and the compass directions of sector antennas for the two towers depicted on Zellner's office floor. Circle and pie shapes don't represent the full range that the towers cover (cell sectors do not conform to a pie shape, nor is the coverage area a circle). The absolute maximum range for a standard Global System for Mobile
Communications (GSM) network is 35 km or 21.748 miles (AT&T, which
merged with Cingular starting in 2004, is a GSM wireless company).
The first four digits of a cell site is the tower number and the
fifth digit (as in 1, 2 or 3) represents the compass direction of the
sector antenna. If you don't
have good line of sight in the typical directions (N to NE, SE to S, and W), they will turn them to the
best positions possible to cover as much area as possible; therefore,
in reality, it can vary, so the directional sectors listed
below are approximated.
Sector number — typical antenna pointing direction:
1 — approximately N to NE;
2 — 120° clockwise from 1 --- approximately SE to S;
3 — 120° clockwise from 2 --- approximately W.
Generally speaking, each sector covers 120
degrees, and sector one is North to Northeast,
sector 2 is South to Southeast, and sector 3 is West. This is not
absolute as your phone could be in sector 2 and yet ping sector 1 or 3
due to cellular traffic conditions and various environmental and
engineering factors, such as weather, trees, foliage, hills, buildings,
signs, etc., and whether you're inside or outside at the time, where
structural materials may block the tower signal.
The map below, which is from the book Cellular Location Evidence for Legal Professionals by Larry E. Daniel, illustrates the wide variation in radio coverage at ground level for cell tower sectors in an area. For example, the cell sector represented by the yellow area is an irregular shape, and a large portion of the sector’s coverage is
disconnected from the tower, creating hot spots where a phone can make a
call without being anywhere near the tower.
The maps above and below from this link
(pages 13-16) illustrate that radio coverage of cell towers and sectors
is not limited to a precise circle or pie shapes (circle and pie shapes have
little to no relationship on the way that radio waves actually work). Radio coverage varies a great deal from tower to tower and from sector to
sector (and from day to day).
The paradigm is the assumption that, when you make a call on your cell phone, it automatically routes to the nearest cell tower, and that by capturing those records police can determine where you made a call—and thus where you were—at a particular time. However, that is not how the system works. When you hit “send” on your cell phone, a complicated series of events takes place that is governed by algorithms and proprietary software, not just by the location of the cell tower."
Cell phones attempt to connect with the tower emitting the strongest and highest quality signal at a given moment, not the closest. The actual determination of which cell tower is used is complex and hinges on a multitude of factors that are not memorialized in the call detail records [you would need access to cell tower historical data].
Many factors come into play in the selection of a tower to handle a cellular phone call, and these factors are specific to the moment in time when the call is connected.
Such factors include:
a. the loading of the towers in the area, which means, which tower has the available capacity at that moment in time to handle the call
b.the health of the towers in the area at the moment in time, which means, are all towers fully functioning at the time of the call
c. line of sight to the tower from the cellular phone itself
d. radio signal interference from other cell towers in the area
e. the make and model and condition of the particular cell phone being used
f. multi-pathing which is a function of the terrain as well as both natural and man-made clutter in the area such as trees, hills, buildings and signs that cause radios waves to be either reflected or absorbed, also referred to as Rayleigh fading.
g. the strength and quality of signal from the towers around the cell phone
h. whether the phone is inside a building or outside at the time the call was recorded, where structural materials may block the signal from one tower, forcing the cell phone to select a different tower than one it would be able to connect with if it were outdoors."
Teresa's incoming calls on October 31st are listed below (trial exhibit 361).
From the list you can see that her home tower was 2111 and, while at
home, one of her incoming calls was processed by a different sector of
tower 2111. This is an illustration of variation in radio coverage at ground level for cell tower sectors.
A handover to the better signal will occur if a sector
is near its threshold. In 2005, there were a lot of factors involved in
the GSM handover. Generally, a stronger signal that is increasing in
strength and a current
signal that is decreasing will signal a handover event. It depends on
other factors, such as which tower, which method, etc. [Source]
"The
network (the tower network) knows the quality of the link between the
mobile and the BTS as well as the strength of local BTSs as reported
back by the mobile. It also knows the availability of channels in the
nearby cells. As a result it has all the information it needs to be able
to make a decision about whether it needs to hand the mobile over from
one BTS to another."
"If the network decides that it
is necessary for the mobile to hand over, it assigns a new channel and
time slot to the mobile. It informs the BTS and the mobile of the
change. The mobile then retunes during the period it is not transmitting
or receiving, i.e., in an idle period." [Source]
The two incoming calls to Teresa's cell phone that were processed by tower 2110 (1:52 PM and 2:41 PM) on October 31st were calls that went
to voicemail, so they would be unpredictable in providing information on the phone's physical
location, according to discussions on the Adnan Syed case. For incoming calls that don't go to voicemail, the
system will ask the network where was the phone last located. If
that tower still has a reasonable signal, it may connect the call. If the user has moved, there may be a stronger signal with another tower even though the phone still has a reasonable connection with the first tower. For outgoing calls, the phone will look for the tower with the best signal.
"In our records, incoming calls are not shown. No incoming calls show
on the records, just the outgoing calls." - Laura Schadrie, Cingular
Wireless Store Manager, Day 12, Page 210
Teresa Halbach’s voice mails have been a topic of discussion here and in other Reddit subs. During trial, the voice mails were an issue because the defense was concerned about possible deleted messages.
This post is not intended to discuss whether messages were deleted, rather, it’s intended to focus on the sequential order of the unique database identifiers assigned to the voice mails.
The state’s record of the messages was submitted as Exhibit 372 for Steven Avery's trial (link below.) From the exhibit, I noticed that each record is assigned to a “Message ID.” That ID is found on the first upper left side of the entry. Page one of Exhibit 372 starts with Message ID 1336891647.
In looking at the Message Id’s, at least initially, it appears they are assigned in order sequentially by date… the numbers seem to increase or decrease, depending upon the date the message was received. So, the aforementioned Message ID of 1336891647 is assigned to a voice mail left on 11/16/2005. An earlier voice mail from 11/1/2005 is assigned to Message ID 435757567. Each number seems to increase, indicating, at least from a data perspective, that Cingular’s database may have organized the records by Message Id, in numerical order, for each message, based on the event date.
But, interesting, is that when one enters all records and organizes the data, numerically, by Message ID, 15 (79%) of the messages follow the event/date pattern of this sequencing, yet 4 messages (21%) are out of order:
2. Unopened messages, of which there are eight, and they all came in after
Teresa last checked her VM at 2:13 pm on 10/31; and
2. Incoming OLD Messages, of which there are 10, and all
but one of them came in after Teresa last checked her VM from her phone.
This last set is
important for understanding who did what later.
Incoming OLD messages have been listened to. They are NOT
unopened, because those are reported their own category.
The last time Teresa checked her VM and presumably opened
messages, was at 2:13 pm, for only 37 SECONDS. That is NOT enough time to listen
to all the messages that had come in since the last time she checked at 12:39 pm.
There is a message left at 1:54pm (line 13 on her call record, the 1:52 pm incoming call) for
1 minute 15 seconds, twice as long as the time she was on her VM at 2:13 pm.
Therefore, the message from the 1:52 pm caller could NOT have been heard all the way through, if at all.
AND YET -- here's the kicker -- all messages received up to
8 am on 11/2 had been opened.
Unopened messages start at 9:23 am on 11/2.
So
presumably, Ryan Hillegas and Mike Halbach listened to 10 messages. Teresa did NOT.
[–]siebenkommaacht
On 11/2 she wasn’t a missing person.... officially. So why
is he listening to her VM at all?
[–]Turk182
10/31 - Nobody notices and assumes she is at a Halloween
Party
11/1 – Their thinking that maybe she stayed over at a friend’s
or hooked up
11/2 – Scott’s birthday and she is a no=show (this is odd,
let’s check her voicemail)
There was likely discussion between family and friends on
11/2. Not wanting to file a missing person report since not all had been
contacted. Likely assumed she was with a new guy.
On 11/3 when they hear back from Autotrader that she hasn’t
been at work -- they aren’t going to admit that they assumed she had hooked up.
It would look bad for them if something happened to Teresa -- so family and
friends are like “yeah, we just noticed also.”
This is more about protecting her character to employer and
police.
I believe Mike said he stopped listening and didn't listen
to them all. But is that true? We don't know how to tell when he accessed them
other than his word.
Exhibit 372
is a report of Teresa's voicemail activity from October 31, 2005 to the time it
was run on or after November 16, 2005, the last record of activity. Exhibit 62 is a report by Fassbender, who listened to the messages in Teresa's voicemail box.
Mike Halbach, Teresa's brother, testified that he had known Teresa's password and deleted some of her
voicemail messages (day 18, page 176).
Anthony Zimmerman from Cingular testified about
how voicemail messages are managed in queue (day 18, page 156). For some reason, page 162 of Zimmerman's testimony has been redacted. Also, Buting, on cross examination, asked questions that Zimmerman couldn't answer using exhibit 372, but Buting didn't ask him about other reports that could be made available to the defense to provide those answers (page 167).
Kratz
and Buting argued about the voicemail messages dated
October 31st, November 1st and up through 8:05 a.m. on November 2nd.
Buting believed some of those messages were opened or deleted on the morning of November 2nd.
Kathleen Zellner, in her August 26, 2016 motion, contends that voicemail messages were deleted on October 31st and prior to 7:12 a.m. on November 2nd. On page 4 of her motion she writes:
"Five voicemail deletions occurred on October 31, 2005 and eleven additional deletions were made prior to 7:12 a.m. on November 2, 2005."
Zellner must have discovery materials that support this claim because trial testimony and evidence does not, even though the defense argued the same thing.
Teresa Halbach's Voicemail Report
There are a total of 19 records for voicemail activity on the printout entered into evidence (exhibit 372). Eighteen messages were recorded prior to November 4th, the date the Cingular pre-bill was generated and faxed (the fax was sent at 22:34 on November 4th). One message was recorded on November 16th, 11 days after Teresa's RAV4 was found at Avery Salvage Yard.
Comparing Teresa's call records (exhibit 361) with her voicemail activity (exhibit 372),
you can see that every phone call that went to voicemail is 18-20 seconds longer than
the length of the message. This indicates the length
of time for her answering message to pick up and play through.
The duration calcuations for voicemails left on November 1st match what is listed in the voicemail report.
Voicemails Left on October 31st:
Two voicemails were left on October 31st, one by the caller at 1:52 PM (retrieved by Teresa, voicemail duration 28 seconds, total call duration 76 seconds) and one by the caller at 2:41 PM (never retrieved by Teresa, voicemail duration 60 seconds, total call duration 80 seconds). Mike Halbach, Teresa's brother, had her cell phone password and would have been the one to listen to or skip during playback this message left by the caller at 2:41 PM because Teresa never retrieved this message on October 31st.
To get the voicemail duration, subtract 18-20 seconds (the time for Teresa's greeting to play in full) to the total call duration (from Teresa's Cingular pre-bill, exhibit 361). This should match the duration listed on Teresa's voicemail report (exhibit 372).
1:52:43 call duration 76 - 19 = 57 seconds, but record shows 28 second
2:41:59 call duration 80 - 20 = 60 seconds, same as what the report shows
The 1:54 record on the report is the voicemail left by the 1:52:43 caller. The duration calculation for this voicemail does not match the voicemail report, which means the record for this voicemail on the faxed report has been altered.
Also, this record is only seven lines long versus eight lines for the other records because the "From" and "Call Answer" fields have been altered (the phone number 920-227-8985, rather than the email address "non_mail_user@glr.smbs.sbc.com", is in these fields, and this is the only record that has a phone number in the these fields).
Someone left a voicemail for Teresa starting at 1:52 p.m., which she retrived when she last checked her voicemail at 2:13 p.m., but the prosecution doesn't want us to know who made the call.
The voicemail left by the caller at 1:52 PM on October 31st was altered on the voicemail report. The call duration lists as 1:15 on the AT&T and Cingular reports. However, it lists as only 28 seconds on the voicemail report. The formatting for this voicemail terminating at 1:54 PM is 7 lines versus 8 for the other records, and line 6 of this record expands beyond the margins. The numbering sequence on the voicemail report for the "Msg-IDs" is out of order.
There
is no date or header for the voicemail report, but it was run on or after 11/16
because a new incoming message was received on that date and is listed on
the report.
UPDATE JUNE 9, 2017 - ZELLNER'S PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF SAYS TERESA HALBACH WENT TO AVERY'S BEFORE ZIPPERER'S
On June 7, 2017, Kathleen Zellner filed a motion for post-conviction relief for Steven Avery. In it she gives the "correct timeline for his activities" on October 31st, which is based on Steven's affidavit (Affidavit of Steven Avery, attached and incorporated herein as P-C Exhibit 4) and "Ms. Halbach's new cell records" (Ms. Halbach's New Cell Records, attached and incorporated herein as P-C Exhibit 72):
"Current post-conviction counsel, using new telephone records of Ms.
Halbach, has reconstructed the correct timeline and route that Ms.
Halbach took on October 31, 2005."
The following is the "accurate timeline for Steven Avery's activities on October 31, 2005," according to Zellner's motion filed on June 7, 2017 (page 139).
Mr. Avery has given an affidavit that the following is the correct timeline for his activities on October 31, 2005:
8:12 a.m.: Mr. Avery called AutoTrader to schedule an appointment for his sister Barb Janda. According to Angela Schuster ("Ms. Schuster"), manager of the AutoTrader office, Mr. Avery was already linked to Barb's husband Tom Janda's AutoTrader account.
11:04 a.m.: Mr. Avery called AutoTrader from his landline (920-755-4860) (Toll Free Records, P-C Exhibit 74), which was linked in the AutoTrader records to Tom Janda's account. (11/6/05 DCI interview of Angela Schuster; "11/6/05 Schuster Interview," attached and incorporated herein as P-C Exhibit 75). Mr. Avery confirmed that a photographer was coming to the Avery property to photograph the Janda van and that the photographer would be arriving at approximately 2:00 p.m. Mr. Avery confirmed the address of the Barbara Janda appointment as being 12932 Avery Road. (Affidavit of Steven Avery, P-C Exhibit 4). At this point in time, there can be no question that Ms. Pliszka knew that the appointment, scheduled at 8:12 a. m., was made by Mr. Avery and that it was to take place at the Avery property. The State omitted Mr. Avery's call to AutoTrader at 11:04 p.m. from its timeline to the jury. (Trial Exhibit 360).
2:24 p.m.: Mr. Avery called Ms. Halbach to see when she would be arriving. (Affidavit of Steven Avery, P-C Exhibit 4).
2:31 p.m.: Ms. Halbach arrived at the Avery property. Mr. Avery recalls that when he looked out of his trailer window, he saw Ms. Halbach snap one photograph of the Janda van. Mr. Avery put on his shoes and went outside. Ms. Halbach began walking towards Mr. Avery's trailer, but when she saw Mr. Avery, she waved and turned around to go to her car to get his magazine. When Mr. Avery approached the car, Ms. Halbach was in the driver's seat with the door open and the engine running. Mr. Avery approached the driver's door, which Ms. Halbach left open, and handed Ms. Halbach cash totaling $40.00. Ms. Halbach handed an AutoTrader magazine to Mr. Avery. Mr. Avery remembers there was no mud splattered on Ms. Halbach's car, or visible damage to the driver's side bumper or parking light of her vehicle, and the back seats were in the upright position. Ms. Halbach turned left on Highway 147 after leaving the Avery property. (Affidavit of Steven Avery, P-C Exhibit 4).
2:35 p.m.: Mr. Avery read that AutoTrader advertised for sale front-loaders. He called Ms. Halbach to ask her to come back to his property in order to take a photograph of a loader that he wished to sell. Mr. Avery hung up before Ms. Halbach picked up the phone because he wanted to go see Bobby. (Affidavit of Steven Avery, P-C Exhibit 4).
4:35 p.m.: Mr. Avery called Ms. Halbach again at 4:35 p.m. that evening to set up an appointment for her to photograph the front-loader to advertise it in AutoTrader. (Affidavit of Steven Avery, P-C Exhibit 4). Mr. Avery's call went to the automated voicemail.
5:36 p.m.: Mr. Avery's girlfriend Jodi called Mr. Avery from jail. The couple spoke for fifteen minutes, the maximum time allowed from jail phones. These calls were recorded by the jail. (Jail Phone Log, attached and incorporated herein as P-C Exhibit 76, STATE 1 _9308).
7:00 p.m.: Mr. Avery had a bonfire. The fire burned for about two or two and a half hours. His nephew Brendan came over as well. They burned brush. (Affidavit of Steven Avery, P-C Exhibit 4).
8:57 p.m.: Jodi called Mr. Avery from the jail phone and the couple again spoke for the maximum time allowed from jail phones. This call was recorded by the jail. Brendan went home before Jodi called, and by the time Brendan left, the fire had burned down to ash. (Jail Phone Log, P-C Exhibit 76, STATE 1_9308).
Concerning the bonfire that Steven believes occurred in his pit on October 31st, detectives persuaded witnesses that there had been a bonfire on October 31st. Steven himself then became convinced that he had a bonfire on October 31st. However, based on initial statements of witnesses, especially those of Blaine Dassey, there wasn't a bonfire on October 31st. The false memories implanted in the minds of witnesses overcame any true recollection of events on October 31st.
SUMMARY OF TIMELINE BASED ON ZELLNER'S JUNE 7, 2017 MOTION
1:52 PM: Teresa's cell phone is being serviced by the same tower that will service it again at 2:41:59, the Whitelaw tower, which is 13.1 miles from the Avery property (per Zellner's August 2016 motion).
2:13 PM: Teresa checks her voicemail. The call to her voicemail was serviced by a cell tower in Shoto, near Zipperer's (according to the fax of Teresa's Cingular pre-bill, but the fax may have been doctored). Teresa may have turned onto County Road B, heading north, rather than south, believing she was heading in the direction of Zipperer's, but Zipperer's was in the other direction on County Road B. Since she was heading north on County Road B, she continued in that direction to Avery's, which was one of the routes she could have taken to Avery Salvage Yard.
2:31 PM: Steven looks out his trailer window and sees Teresa taking one photo of Barb's van; Steven grabs the ad description and cash and walks outside; Teresa sees Steven and waves for him to meet her at her RAV4; Steven walks to Teresa's RAV4 and he gives her $40 as she is sitting in the driver's seat with the engine running; Teresa hands Steven a current copy of AutoTrader magazine (if Teresa's phone was pinging a tower during this time period, Zellner would know because she has cell tower data; however, Ryan Hillegas said coverage was spotty at Avery Salvage Yard, which could mean that Teresa's phone was not registered with a tower while she was at the salvage yard).
2:33 PM: Steven has returned to his trailer; Bobby is getting in his truck; Teresa is in her RAV4 with the door shut and engine running.
2:33 PM: Bobby leaves and doesn't see Teresa in her vehicle, but she is there, in her RAV4, with it running, parked in the driveway, about to leave.
2:34 PM: Teresa leaves right after Bobby leaves.
2:35 PM: Steven, still inside his trailer, calls Teresa to see if she will return to take a photo of a front-loader, but he hangs up before she answers; he decides to next door to Barb's to talk to Bobby (he doesn't know that Bobby just left).
2:36 PM: Steven walks outside and sees Teresa signaling to turn left from Avery Road onto highway 147 (Bobby just left, and Teresa was right behind him, but Steven was inside his trailer when Bobby left and turned right from Avery Road onto highway 174, so he only sees Teresa leaving).
2:41 PM: Teresa has left Avery Salvage Yard and is driving back from where she just came, southward toward Zipperer's, but this time on County Road Q, not County Road B (she is north of a tower in Whitelaw, which is currently servicing her phone rather than the Zipperer tower in Shoto -- as she gets closer to Zipperer's, the tower in Shoto would take over if her phone is still powered on). At 2:41, her cell phone is registering with the same tower, the Whitelaw tower, that serviced it 49 minutes earlier, at 1:52.
2:50 PM or later: Teresa arrives at Zipperer's (her phone would be pinging the Shoto tower if it was still powered on; however, Teresa inadvertently may have turned her phone off when she pressed "end" to forward the call at 2:41 to voicemail -- CFNA).
"The cell phone coverage out in that area [of Avery Salvage Yard] is absolutely horrid. And to get a call out to -- most of the time when I used my phone out there, I only had 30 seconds or a minute to talk before your phone cut off on you." - Ryan Hillegas, pre-trial testimony
Also from Zellner's June 7th motion for post-conviction relief:
Trial defense counsel, by not carefully reviewing the discovery and not having the appropriate experts, failed to realize the following:
Ms. Halbach's last appointment was at the Zipperer's not the Avery's, and the CD of her voicemail left on the Zipperer's answering machine was concealed and/or destroyed by the State to mislead the jury into believing Ms. Halbach's last stop was Mr. Avery's.
Also from Zellner's June 7th motion for post-conviction relief:
Investigators withheld the Zipperer voicemail CD which contained favorable and exculpatory evidence for Mr. Avery
The CD of Ms. Halbach's voicemail recording on the Zipperer answering machine was never turned over to trial defense counsel and has allegedly disappeared. Current post-conviction counsel, through their investigators, sent a FOIA request for the CD, and neither Manitowoc nor Calumet Counties claimed to have possession of the voicemail CD.
Furthermore, although trial defense counsel's discovery requests would have encompassed the CD, it was never turned over by Mr. Kratz in discovery. Mr. Fallon confirmed in a letter to current post-conviction counsel on April 20, 2017, that neither Calumet nor the Manitowoc Sheriffs Departments have been able to locate the CD of Ms. Halbach's voicemail left on the Zipperer answering machine.
Suspiciously, Mr. Kratz never played the recording of the 2:12 p.m. voicemail for the jury. It is reasonable to conclude that Mr. Kratz concealed the 2:12 p.m. voicemail because it confirmed that the Zipperers' residence was Ms. Halbach's last stop.
Corroboration of this assertion is found in a recorded conversation between Inv. Wiegert and Det. Remiker on November 5, 2005, about the sequence of Ms. Halbach's appointments on October 31, 2005. In that conversation, which occurred after interviews with Mr. Schmitz, Mr. Avery, and Mr. Zipperer, they concluded that Ms. Halbach's first appointment was with Mr. Schmitz, her second appointment was with the Averys, and her third appointment was with the Zipperers.
Bobbie Dohrwardt of Cellcom testified that she prepared the spreadsheet for Avery's cell phone calls (day 12, page 153)but the who, what and why of using her "call log" rather than Avery's actual bill wasn't explained. This "call log" created on a spreadsheet (exhibit 359) was entered into evidence rather than Avery's actual bill, which would have shown all his calls along with the cell sites used. Dorhrwardt's "call log" did not show any cell site information.
During her testimony, Dohrwardt used the "call log" spreadsheet (exhibit 359), the documents prepared by Kratz (exhibits 360 and 362), and Teresa's Cingular pre-bill (exhibit 361) to testify about who called Avery and Teresa and at what time.
It is obvious why Avery's actual bill was not entered into evidence: it would list calls that could destroy the prosecution's timeline. Also, it is important to note that the bill from Teresa's carrier, Cingular, shows phone numbers for her outgoing calls but not her incoming calls. If Cingular only provides the phone numbers for outgoing calls, how did Ken Kratz determine the identity of the incoming callers to Teresa's cell phone (he would need to subpoena or execute a warrant for her call detail request to get the incoming numbers)?
Kratz prepared a separate document, a "summary exhibit," where he listed names of incoming callers to Teresa's cell phone (Exhibit 362 above), but without other official documentation there is no way to confirm that the names are the actual callers. In other words, Kratz's concocted document list names and call times for incoming calls but there is no evidence to back this up. He created these documents to support his timeline. And these documents should not have been presented to Dohrwardt when she testified: she doesn't know who made the incoming calls to Teresa, and for Kratz to ask her to tell the jury who made the calls by reading from his concocted documents is outrageous.
None of the documents used at trial are acceptable. Anything faxed can
be altered. Only printouts of official documentation produced directly by the cell phone carriers should have been admitted into evidence.
"In our records, incoming calls are not shown. No incoming calls show on the records, just the outgoing calls." - Laura Schadrie, Cingular Wireless Store Manager, Day 12, Page 210
"In our records, incoming calls are not shown. No incoming calls show
on the records, just the outgoing calls." - Laura Schadrie, Cingular
Wireless Store Manager, Day 12, Page 210
Kratz created the "summary exhibit" listing Dawn as the 2:27 p.m. caller, but this is based on Wiegert misrepresenting that call since November 3rd. No evidence was entered at trial to prove who made the incoming calls.
On day 12 of the trial, Laura Schadrie, a Cingular
Wireless Store Manager, testified:"In our records, incoming calls are not shown. No incoming calls show
on the records, just the outgoing calls."(Day 12, Page 210). The incoming calls are pure fabrication by the prosecution.
In all likelihood, the 2:27 p.m. call was from someone in the Zipperer home. Was this George, JoEllen, Bonnie or Jason returning Teresa's call from 15 minutes earlier? The called lasted 4 minutes and 45 seconds.
Sometime after the 2:27 p.m. call, Teresa set her phone to "Call Forwarding No Answer," which means her incoming calls would automatically go to voicemail.
About 10 minutes after first trying to call Teresa to see if she could come back for a second shot, Avery tried again at 2:35 p.m. using *67, but hung up before the call even registered with Teresa's phone: meaning, she didn't see that second call attempt.
At this point maybe Avery decided he should just call AutoTrader and ask them to see if Teresa could come back for a second shot. Avery's actual cell phone bill was not entered into evidence, so we don't know if this was the case.
At 2:41 p.m., an incoming call to Teresa went to voicemail. She never retrieved this voicemail. This was the last call to register with a cell tower. This last call forwarded message (CFNA) occurred when her cellphone was still powered on and registered.When CFNA is activated,
you must provide a forwarding phone number and a number of rings. CFNA
forwards your phone to that forwarding number. If that forwarding number
doesn't answer, then the call is
sent to voicemail. The default behavior is for the phone to go to
voicemail if it is unanswered.
Dawn told Wiegert on November 3rd that the 2:27 p.m. to Teresa could have been her because she left Teresa a voicemail that afternoon. However, Teresa answered the 2:27 p.m. incoming call and spoke to the caller for almost five minutes. The only voicemails left that afternoon were at 1:52 p.m. and 2:41 p.m. Coincidentally, both of these calls were not included on the summary exhibit created by Kratz of Teresa's cell activity. These voicemails are included in a printout entered into evidence. The printout for the 1:52 voicemail record was altered; the 2:41 voicemail record, although not altered, didn't have any data that would help identify the caller.
Teresa called two other people that morning, and both were located in Green Bay.
It seems virtually every witness called by Kratz at Avery's trial was coached to lie to backup the prosecution's timeline, and it seems like Avery is the the only one with a consistent story about his contact with Teresa that day and the time she arrived and departed.
Teresa's phone last registered with a cell site at 2:41 p.m., an incoming call that went to voicemail, and that caller left a 60-second voicemail. Teresa made no calls and answered no calls after that.
The next person to try calling her was Avery at 4:35 p.m., but by this time her phone was no longer registering with a cell site, which means it was powered off or the battery was dead or removed.
So something happened to Teresa between 2:41 p.m. and 4:35 p.m.
The earliest she would have left Zipperer's is 3 p.m. Since she hadn't made any calls or received any calls during this time period, there is no cell tower data on her Cingular bill to indicate her location.
Teresa was killed:
1. On Zipperer's property;
2. On the road or at another appointment after leaving Zipperer's property, heading either toward Green Bay or home;
3. At her photo studio in Green Bay if she went there to assemble her materials and overnight her package to AutoTrader; or
4. At or near her home if she headed there after her last appointment (she could have gone home to assemble her materials, with the plan to overnight the package to AutoTrader from Appleton, which is near her home).
Wiegert's report on his November 3rd activity is shady (trial exhibit 216,
excerpt below). The report doesn't even indicate when he wrote it.
Laura Schadrie of Cingular testified: "In our records, incoming calls
are not shown... no incoming calls show on the records, just the
outgoing calls." And she testified that Cingular doesn't print out the
phone numbers of incoming calls. So Wiegert only had the phone numbers
of the outgoing calls from Teresa's phone. And those calls only had the
phone numbers, not the names of the callers. Wiegert wrote that the
11:43 a.m. outgoing call was to Steven Avery when that number belongs to
Barb Janda. Also, see other notes on the image below on why Wiegert's
report is part of the conspiracy to frame Avery.
