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...— Sara Exum (@sara2oz1019) July 7, 2018
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.UPDATE NOVEMBER 14, 2017: Kathleen Zellner filed a "Motion for Reconsideration" with 20 new exhibits on October 23, 2017.
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).
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).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.
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
- 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).
"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?
Wiegert: I don't know that.
Remiker: Alright.
Attached to the post-conviction petition that Kathleen Zellner filed on June 7, 2017, is a DCI report by agent Neil McGrath, who met with Teresa's AutoTrader supervisor, Angela Schuster, on November 6, 2006. Angela said the following (per the DCI report):
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.There are two numbers on the 2005 faxed Cingular pre-bill that do not appear at all on the 2017 AT&T: report:
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.
- 920-360-2455 (Coakley)
- 920-682-5719 (Zipperer)
- 10/29/2005, time stamp 11:44:05, duration 00:35
- 10/29/2005, time stamp 11:44:48, duration 01:09
- 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
- 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
-- 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, 2016The 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.Cellphone tower records of SA & TH provide airtight alibi for him. She left property he didn't. #MakingAMurderer #UnmakingAMurderer— Kathleen Zellner (@ZellnerLaw) March 6, 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).
Based on tower information from General Data Resources, the two towers depicted on Zellner's office floor (Newsweek, March 29, 2016) are:
- 7500 Village Drive, Whitelaw, WI
- 5073 County Road B, Manitowoc, WI
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 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).
According to an article in The New Yorker:
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 callTeresa'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
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."
Date|Time|Type|Duration|Tower
10/31/05 08:17:01 Incoming 1.06 21112
10/31/05 09:46:02 Incoming 0.33 21112
10/31/05 10:44:37 Incoming 0.37 21112
10/31/05 10:52:01 Incoming 0.05 21112
10/31/05 11:10:11 Incoming 0.05 21111
10/31/05 11:25:41 Incoming 0.43 21112
10/31/05 12:29:08 Incoming 0.40 21112
10/31/05 12:45:12 Incoming 3.00 21112
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."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.
"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]
"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[–]seekingtruthforgood
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:
https://imgur.com/zIJc8ba
I wonder what might explain this?
Exhibit 372:
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Trial-Exhibit-372-Halbach-Voicemail-Records.pdf
TickTockManitowoc
January 12, 2018
The VM record is separated into three sections:
1. NEW (the 11/16
call);
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.
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.
Voicemails Left on November 1st:
9:49:42 call duration = 86 - 19 = 67 seconds
12:31:39 call duration = 49 - 19 = 30 seconds
2:01:22 call durcation = 48 - 20 = 30 seconds
2:45:26 call duration = 40 - 18 = 22 seconds
4:59:06 call duration = 51 - 18 = 33 seconds
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.
The voicemail report was run/sorted by:
1. Incoming New Messages (1) - NOT OPENED DURING A PLAYBACK
920-469-8835 - 11/16, 40 seconds
This record was altered. This message was recorded 11 days after Teresa's RAV4 was found at Avery Salvage Yard. Why did they alter this record? Were they practicing with this one before altering the one they really wanted to change, the voicemail ending at 1:54 p.m. on 10/31/05?
2. Incoming Unopened Messages (8) - WERE EITHER LISTENED AND NOT SAVED DURING A PLAYBACK OR WERE SKIPPED DURING PLAYBACK
920-869-2585 11/2, 9:23, 69 seconds
CLI # blank - 11/2, 14:28
920-217-7668 - 11/2, 18:39
920-213-1645 - 11/2, 19:23
920-989-1098 - 11/2, 19:23, 10 seconds
920-869-2585 - 11/3, 7:23, 45 seconds
920-655-8119 - 11/3, 8:31, 23 seconds
920-655-8119 - 11/3, 10:33, 15 seconds
Zimmerman testified that "unopened" means simply that they were not saved during a playback of messages (the messages could have been listened to or skipped but were not saved during a playback):
Q. Now, there are two other terms that I would ask you to identify for us. First of all, what is an unopened message?
A. It is simply a message that has not been saved. And one can draw the conclusion that it was either listened to or skipped while the playback was taking place.
Q. And once again, when a message is not saved, that is, whether it's been listened to or skipped, or not, does that tell us anything about when that message might have been retrieved or listened to?
A. No, that does not tell us anything about that.
Q. And, Mr. Zimmerman, I ask you to look at that as well. It appears to say number of unopened messages, eight; do you see that?
A. Yes, I see that.
Q. Can you describe for jury what that means?
A. That is the total count of messages that are marked unopened, that have not been saved in the mailbox.
3. Incoming Old Messages (10) - MESSAGES THAT HAVE BEEN OPENED AND SAVED DURING A PLAYBACK (all are listed on Teresa's Cingular pre-bill fax)
Mike Halbach testified that he listened to Teresa's messages on November 3rd and deleted about half of them. He testified that he had known Teresa's password. The altered voicemail from the caller at 1:52 p.m. ended at 1:54 p.m.. The caller at 1:52 p.m. was purposely left off of Kratz's document summarizing Teresa's phone activity on October 31st, and it was also not mentioned by Wiegert in the report of his November 3rd activity.Anthony Zimmerman from Cingular testified about how voicemail messages are managed (day 18, page 156). Concerning "old messages" in Teresa's voicemail report, Zimmerman testified:
Q. What is an old message?
A. And old message refers to a message that had been saved in the mailbox.
Q. If a message has been saved in the mailbox, are you able, as a network engineer in the technical support area, able to render an opinion as to whether that has physically been listened to?
A. It has. Yes, I can render an opinion that it has been listened to, at least partially and most likely entirely.
Q. All right. And is there a manual or some human component to that which requires that message to be saved?
A. Yes, there is, one must interact via the keys on their handset or telephone.
Q. Ask you, also, Mr. Zimmerman, to look at that on page four, ask if you can tell us how many old messages was there that were related to Ms Halbach's voice mail?
A. There are 10.
Q. Of those 10 retrieved or saved messages, is there any way for your company, and for you, as it's representative and network engineer, to tell this jury when those messages may have been listened to?
A. I cannot determine when exactly these messages were listened to, no.
[...]
Q. And, sir, if you would turn to the last page, this is the last one, message number 10, that appears to be categorized as an old message; is that right?
A. That's right.
Q. And the date and time of this one is November 2nd, 2005, at 8:05 a.m.; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. So, from this record, then, does it appear to you that 10 messages were opened and listened to, or at least partially listened to, as you said, between October 31st, that first one we looked at, and this 10th one on November 2nd, at 8:05?
A. I can't determine when they were listened to, or saved, based on these records.
[...]
Q. I understand. I'm not asking you that. What I'm asking you is, is it clear from these records, though, that those first 10 messages, in chronological order, were opened and listened to?
A. Yes. Yes, that is apparent.
Q. Okay. And, then, turning to page one, again, of this exhibit, to message number one, on this exhibit for the next -- on page one and two, there's a series of -- a sequence of eight messages that appear to be under this category that says incoming unopened messages; do you see that?
A. Yes, I see that.
Q. Do I understand, then, that incoming unopened means they have not been listened to?
A. No. No, they are actually marked in the system as having been listened to, but not saved.
Q. And how would that be? How do you listen to it and not save it?
A. And you simply don't interact with the handset. You don't interact. You don't press any keys, the save key, you don't press the save key, and it will stay in this date. You can press say, for instance, a pound key, to skip the message, but listen to the next one, but as long as you don't save them, they will stay in this date, after listening to them.
Q. Okay. So when it says unopened messages, it doesn't necessarily mean that they weren't listened to at all?
A. No, it simply means that they have not been saved.
Q. Okay. And can you tell that they have been listened to?
A. At least partially. They have been marked as listened to in the system, but if one message was to begin playing and the skip key was pressed, that would also mark it as having been listened to, in the system.
Q. Okay. So how does this differ from the opened messages?
A. The opened messages have been saved. The saved key has been pressed, after listening to the message in its entirety, or at least partially, which marks the message as saved, also known as hold.
Q. Okay. (Court reporter couldn't hear.)
Q. Hold. And I'm trying to get clear the difference here then. So these eight messages that are marked as incoming unopened messages, it's your testimony that they -- that someone did open them and listen to them, at least partially, and then either let them play all the way through and not interact and save, or push some button that skips to the next before they're completed?
A. Yes, that is my testimony.
Q. Okay. And when you do that, they are automatically saved as incoming, unopened messages.
A. Yes, they stay in the mailbox as -- as incoming unopened messages.
Q. Okay. And, then, when one listens to them, and at the end of each message, chooses to push a button to save them, that's when they get reclassified as incoming opened messages; do I have that right?
A. They are actually classified as incoming old messages.
Q. All right. Then, from this document, can we determine, then, that the -- in chronological order, the first 10 messages were opened and saved, each one, manually, by pushing a button, beginning on October 31st; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. But the next eight were listened to or skipped, but not saved.
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. Thank you, very much. That's very helpful. Can you tell from this -- from these records, whether or not someone listened to any voice mails and then erased them?
A. I cannot tell from this record that that has been done, no.
Q. And can you tell, from her account, what the capacity for messages would be before you get a message that says mailbox is full?
A. There is a way to tell that on an active voice mailbox via a different report. This report does not show that information.
Q. Okay. From your experience, your years in the business, if you look at these -- By the way, let me go back for a second. Is the capacity determined by, like the length of the call, or the number of the calls?
A. It is considered -- There are limitations placed on both the length of each message and, also, the number of messages that can be stored in the mailbox.
Q. Okay. And the length of these messages are also indicated on this report, right? Each message has a -- third line down from the top says audio, colon, and then a number with parentheses (SEC), like seconds?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. So, for instance, on page number one, message number one, under unopened, where it says audio, 69 seconds, that means it was a 69 second phone call?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. Looking, if you would, for a moment, then, at the length of all of these calls combined together, with a number being 18, do you have an opinion about whether or not this would fill up the capacity of this subscriber's voice mailbox, these messages?
A. This appears that it would not have filled up the full capacity of the mailbox.
Q. All right. And, so, if one was getting a message on November 3rd, when calling this particular phone number, that said mailbox full, would that indicate to you that perhaps some messages that we now -- or that some messages had been erased that are not reflected on this Exhibit No. 372?
A. Well, if somebody heard that recording, that the mailbox was full, on November 3rd, then I would say, yes, at least one or more messages had to have been removed before the new message at the top of this document was received.
Q. Okay. And there's no way to tell what date or time in this sequence that message or messages might have been, that was erased?
A. There is no way to determine that from this record, no.
Q. Okay. And is there also no way to tell what time, I assume, if someone called in, what time it would have been erased?
A. Not from this record, no.
The Message Left by the 1:52 PM Caller:
920-227-8985 voicemail received on 10/31/05, message ending at 13:54, duration 23 seconds - THIS WAS ALTERED. All other records are eight lines long and have the same data in the "From" field. From: non_mail_user@glr.smbs.sbc.com@COMPLEX Call Answer, non_mail_user@glr.smbs.sbc.com. This phone number was added to the "From" field after the report was faxed to LEOs. This number belongs to a company in Madison, WI, Global Crossing Telemanagement, Inc., which was incorporated on October 14, 1982. Teresa very likely opened this message at 2:13 p.m. when she called her voicemail (or it was saved by Mike Halbach during a playback on November 3rd). Why did Kratz/LEOs alter this and then why did Kratz not include this on his "summary exhibit"? Why hide the caller's identity?
The Message Left by the 2:41 PM Caller:
CLI # blank. Received on 10/31/05 at 14:43, duration 60 seconds. Teresa never retrieved this message; she had no cell activity after this caller left this voicemail. Mike Halbach must have saved this voicemail during a playback on November 3rd. Who else heard it and when was it eventually deleted (or was it)? Kratz did not include this call on his "summary exhibit" because it would destroy his timeline.
The "Unopened" Messages on the Voicemail Report (Actually Listened to or Skipped During a Playback But Not Saved)"
CLI # blank - 11/1/05 9:51
920-336-6193 - 11/1/05, 12:32
920-729-7606 - 11/1/05, 14:02
920-989-1813 - 11/1/05, 16:46
CLI # blank - 11/1/05, 17:00
920-989-1098 - 11/2/05, 7:12, 37 seconds
920-360-0458 - 11/2/05, 7:39, 16 seconds
920-366-5400 - 11/2/05, 8:05, 9 seconds.
The calls starting at 2:43 on 10/31 through 8:05 on 11/2 (the "unopened" messages were actually listened to or skipped during a playback at some point prior to November 16th, not necessarily a playback on the morning of November 2nd). All that can be ascertained from the voicemail report entered into evidence is that somebody listened to or skipped the messages labeled as "unopened" during a playback of voicemails. Zimmerman testified that "unopened" simply "is a message that has not been saved, and one can draw the conclusion that it was either listened to or skipped while the playback was taking place."
Mike Halbach testified that he had known Teresa's cell phone password from helping her with her website, etc. In a sidebar, Kratz implied that Mike opened those voicemails after Teresa was determined missing on 11/3/05.
None of the voicemails had a callback number.
Four of the voicemails did not have CLI #.
The 2:41 voicemail on 10/31/05, which ended at 2:43, does not have a CLI number or callback number. Dawn at AutoTrader testified that Teresa called her at 2:27 p.m. and talked to her for 4 minutes, 45 seconds but this was an incoming call, not an outgoing call.
From an attached exhibit in Kathleen Zellner's motion for post-conviction relief filed on June 7, 2017:
"[AutoTrader supervisor Angela] Schuster stted that she believes the call [between Dawn Pliska and Teresa Halbach] took place at 2:27 p.m. because she had spoken to Manitowoc County Detective named Mark [Wiegert] who advised Schuster of the time that the call had taken place."Teresa's voicemails at this link:
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Trial-Exhibit-372-Halbach-Voicemail-Records.pdf
Steven told Fassbender (page 15) that he tried to call Teresa two to three times on her cell phone but she did not answer, "including once after she left to tell her that he wanted another picture, but she did not answer her phone." Fassbender wrote his report on November 15, 2005, after Steven was arrested and charged with Teresa's death, so Fassbender is wording his report to support the prosecution's timeline. But it makes more sense for Steven to be calling Teresa right after she left to see if she could come back and take another photo (especially if, at noon, when Steven saw Bobby, Bobby told him about the message Teresa left on the Janda machine at 11:43 a.m., explaining that she would be there that afternoon for the photo shoot): Teresa's not too far from his home so he is trying to catch her before she gets too far away. When she doesn't answer his *67 calls at 2:24 p.m. and 2:35 p.m., he gives up (the 2:35 p.m. doesn't show on Teresa's cell phone records, a pre-bill entered into evidence, but it is on Steven's bill). He tries again two hours later without using *67, but she still doesn't answer. It is right after the two *67 calls, at 2:41 p.m., that "Call Forwarding No Answer" is on activated on Teresa's phone.
"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
Dedering wrote that Cingular told him law enforcement "could obtain subscriber information with a Subpoena, but a Court Order would be required to get information regarding cellular towers."
The Subpoenas or Warrants for Teresa Halbach's Cell Phone Records
Clarification on **multiple** search warrants issued to Cingular. self.MakingaMurderer
By res_ispa_loquitur, subreddit MakingAMurderer
May 3, 2016
CASO Report
Page 40, by Baldwin (11/04/05) - A Subpoena was also prepared for CINGULAR cell phone for the information on TERESA's account as well as other information needed (warrant #1). . . The other two Subpoenas were turned over to Inv. DEDERING to have faxed to the appropriate departments.
Page 43, By Dedering (11/04/05 1310 hrs.) - I did have contact with a representative of CINGULAR WIRELESS regarding a court order that was prepared by Inv. BALDWIN and facsimile transmitted to CINGULAR WIRELESS (warrant #1). CINGULAR WIRELESS folks advised me that they required an eavesdropping warrant similar to a Title 3 Wiretap Warrant in order to access any voice mail records.
Page 53, by Dedering (11/04/05 1905 hrs.) - I did speak with a representative of CINGULAR WIRELESS Legal Dept. The representative advised me that they had received a facsimile transmittal for the Global Positioning System coordinates, as well as the digital number recorder request on TERESA HALBACH's phone (warrant #2). The representative indicated that the Court Order that they received did not cover any historical data as far as calls placed from TERESA HALBACH's cellular phone or calls received by TERESA HALBACH's cellular phone. She stated that we could obtain subscriber information with a Subpoena, and that a Court Order would be required to get information regarding cellular towers that the calls were completed to. She did indicate that we could get the information by declaring this an exigent circumstance, and she indicated that in that event, a Court Order would need to be forwarded to CINGULAR WIRELESS within the next 48 business hours. I did advise the representative that I considered this to be exigent circumstances and did fax out the required documentation declaring this to be exigent circumstances.
Page 124, by Dedering (11/06/05) - I further received a Search Warrant allowing us to examine certain records held by CINGULAR WIRELESS regarding TERESA HALBACH's cellular number (warrant #3). This was received by me at 1350 hrs.
Search Warrant File
Page 20, Search warrant issued on 11/06/05 to Cingular (Judge Fox) (warrant #4) - NOW, THEREFORE, in the name of the State of Wisconsin, you are commanded forthwith to search or cause the release of the said records of Cingular for the information, data or recorded calls aforesaid and cause the voice mail messages to be secured and preserved and return this Warrant within forty-eight hours, before the said Court. * Search warrant returned on 11/16/05, by Wiegert - Warrant not served (likely because they intended to replace this warrant with warrant #5, which contains the court's seal).
Search warrant issued on 11/16/05 to Cingular (Judge Poppy) (warrant #5) - Now, THEREFORE, in the name of the State of Wisconsin, you are commanded forthwith to search or cause the release of the said records of Cingular for the information, data or recorded calls [does this mean her call detail records from Cingular and data dumps from all the cell towers that serviced her phone?] aforesaid and cause the voice mail messages to be secured and preserved and return this Warrant within forty-eight hours, before the said Court. * Search warrant returned on 11/22/05, by Wiegert - No information from this search warrant has been provided as of 11/22/05 to this agency.
CASO needed detailed cell phone records or cell tower historical data (data dumps from cell towers in the areas where she travelled on October 31st), to identify numbers of incoming callers because Cingular did not list incoming calls on their bills, because the pre-bill faxed from Cingular to Wiegert on November 4th only had the phone numbers of outgoing calls.
Tower Dumps:
Law enforcement can request the call records associated with a particular subscriber over a given time period. But what if they don't know what telephone number to ask for, e.g., they want to identify potential suspects who were in a certain area at a particular time? In such cases, they can request a "tower dump" of the cellular base station (or stations) that serve the target area for the time period of interest.
A tower dump lists the CDRs (and, in some cases, new handset registrations) generated for a particular base station over some time period. That is, it is effectively a list of all the telephones and call activity in an area at a particular time. This allows an investigator to request information about everyone who was in a given area without having to specify who is being asked about in the request.
The ability to obtain tower dumps was relatively little known until recently, but they are now a standard wiretapping service offered to law enforcement by almost every major cellular carrier. However, the legal requirements for obtaining tower dumps remain somewhat unclear. They are, by their nature, untargeted, delivering information about activities of everyone in an area, most of whom are presumably not, and will never be, suspects. [Source]
Police Use "Tower Dumps" to Collect Cell Phone Data without a Warrant
By Jess Remington
December 4, 2013
Police officers in Richland County, South Carolina are currently defending the use of a controversial investigation method that grants their departments access to thousands of cell phone users’ data in the search for criminals.
The technique, in which law enforcement officials rely on what are known as “tower dumps,” is an increasingly common policing tactic in local departments across the country. Following a crime, law enforcement officials locate nearby cell towers and request all of the call, text, and data transmissions that occurred during the crime from the tower’s provider. The majority of the data collected belongs to individuals with no connection to the crime.
Subjecting yourself to data seizure through tower dumps is easy. Most cell phone activity connects you to a tower in a way that police can collect: making phone calls, texting, and using social media, such as Tweeting or logging into Facebook.
"So for example if you have a smart phone and you're checking your email, that would cause some communication between your cell phone and one or more cell towers," Christopher Sogohian, a principal technologist for the ACLU, told WLTX. "The police can then go back to the phone company and ask for identifying information."Unlike many forms of data seizure, tower dumps can be executed without a warrant. In accordance with a provision of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, law enforcement can, and often does, rely on judge-issued court orders to obtain cell-site data. Such orders don’t need to meet a probable cause requirement and so are based on significantly less evidence than is required for a warrant.
According to Brian Owsley, a former judge and current law professor at Texas Tech University of Law, police can use tower dumps to collect considerably more personal information than just phone numbers and locations. In his journal article on the problems with tower dumps, he says:
Subscriber or customer information also available based on a law enforcement request may include the person’s name; address; telephone call records, including times and durations; lengths and types of services; subscriber number or identity; means and source of payment, including bank account number or credit card number; date of birth; social security number; and driver’s license number. Indeed, any of this information is available simply by presenting the telecommunications provider with a subpoena.
Subpoena Versus Search Warrant
A subpoena is a directive to produce described documents or other items of tangible property in the possession or control of the party served. Subpoenas may be issued by attorneys or courts in connection with civil litigation and may also be issued by some federal and state governmental agencies. Rules governing subpoenas provide the party served with a definite time to respond and include methods for challenging the subpoena’s validity based on such factors as the method of service or the relevance of the items sought.
A search warrant is an order issued by a magistrate or judge authorizing law enforcement officers to search a particular place for specific documents or tangible property or for types of documents or property. Search warrants are utilized only in criminal investigations and are ordinarily granted to government investigators without notice to either the party being investigated or the party whose property is to be searched. The only requirement for a search warrant is that the government establish “probable cause” to believe that valid grounds exist to support the search. Probable cause is commonly established by an affidavit prepared by a government investigator.
A court order is a legal command issued by a judge or other judicial official. Court orders are sometimes referred to by other names such as magistrate’s order, search warrant, show cause order, order to appear, summons or clerk’s order. A judge or other judicial official may find an individual in contempt of court for not complying with a court order.
The truth lies in the initial statements of witnesses (click here and go to page 20 for Dawn's initial statements). During cross examination, Strang briefly mentions Wiegert's report of his initial interview with Dawn (trial exhibit 216), but Strang doesn't refer to a trial exhibit (day 2, page 85). Dawn testified that Wiegert called her between 8 and 9 on Thursday, November 3rd (day 2, page 85). Fassbender went to the AutoTrader office and met with Angela Schuster (day 2, page 52). Why didn't he write a report about this?
Was it confirmed that the 2:27 p.m. incoming call to Teresa that lasted almost five minutes really was Dawn from AutoTrader? As a contractor for AutoTrader, Teresa's primary form of communication with them was via fax and email. She did her own scheduling after leads were faxed to her. Dawn would call if a last-minute request came from a caller to AutoTrader's office. Dawn had no other reason to call Teresa than to follow up on the faxed "shoot form" to Teresa with a phone call relaying the same information in case Teresa wasn't home to receive the fax. Teresa would fax her completed appointment lead sheet at the end of the day and overnight the package with the photo disc, copy for the ads, and any money she collected.
Kratz coached Dawn to establish a timeline that puts Teresa at Avery's after 2:45 p.m.
Jakse1at Reddit wrote on March 14, 2016:
Per Wiegert on the call, Dawn told him she thought the 2:27 call was from her leaving a message for voicemail, so basically she knew she left her a voicemail that day. But Dawn testifies that she knew she "got" the call from Teresa at 2:27 because she looked at the time because Teresa doesn't normally work past 1 p.m. So her testimony seems accurate and confident about the time when, in reality, right after Teresa was reported missing she really wasn't clear at all. And he made no mention of Dawn saying Teresa told her she was heading to Averys. Wouldn't that be a detail she would be telling them from the get go? So, clearly that isn't reliable either. It is really screwed up how bad these investigators screwed with witness accounts. Now, a lot is probably never going to be known because of so much tampering with witnesses. My guess is that so many times/accounts changed because the investigators would get new information and go back to those witnesses to get another statement that fit their timeline. I'm not saying ST and BD are absolutely not involved, but they were probably very easy to manipulate into changing their accounts. So, rather than seeing them as suspicious for their inconsistencies, it is more likely their stories changes as needed, depending on what the investigators needed. I am sure many of the new details were also added by Kratz during witness preparation also.Summary of Teresa's cell phone records on October 31, 2005:
http://stevenaverycase.com/steven-avery-phone-call-records#sthash.LBuM2X9H.dpbs
Teresa's number is 920-737-4731. On October 31st, she had 12 incoming calls, 4 outgoing calls, and 4 checks of her voicemail.
8:17 am - Incoming call (1:06) from AutoTrader; Dawn talks to Teresa about the Janda job on Avery Road (Teresa acknowledges that it's the Avery brothers)
9:46 am - Incoming call (0:33) from AutoTrader; Dawn leaves message about another same-day request, maybe Speckman?
10:44 am - Incoming call (0:37) from Denise Coakley; goes to voicemail
10:52 am - Incoming call (0:05) from AutoTrader; hangs up
11:04 am - Teresa checks voicemail (1:55); Teresa listens to messages from Dawn and Denise and jots down in her day planner Denise for studio time on Tuesday and Speckman as AT photo shoots on Monday
11:10 am - Incoming call (0:05) from Autotrader; hangs up
11:25 am - Incoming call (0:43) from Morrow; goes to voicemail
11:27 am - Teresa checks voicemail (2:56); Teresa adds Morrow to her day planner for AT shoot on Thursday
11:31 am - Outgoing call to Dan Morrow (3:04)
11:35 am - Outgoing call to Denise Coakley (1:36)
11:43 am - Teresa calls Barb Janda, Avery's sister, and leaves message (1:05)
12:29 pm - Incoming call (0:40) from Teresa's friend, Breckheimer
12:39 pm - Teresa checks voicemail (0:33)
12:45 pm - Incoming call (3:00)
12:51 pm - Teresa calls Schmitz (0:46); probably left a message since call duration only 46 seconds
1:52 pm - Incoming call (1:15) from Thompson; goes to voicemail
2:12 pm - Teresa calls Zipperers (1:09)
2:13 pm - Teresa checks voicemail (0:37)
2:24 pm - Incoming call from Avery; Teresa doesn't answer (0:08)
2:27 pm - Incoming call from AutoTrader? (4:45)
2:41 pm - Incoming call after Teresa activated "Call Forwarding No Answer" on her cell (1:20)
4:35 pm - Incoming call from Avery; he hangs up after getting her voicemail (0:13)
Avery called her cell three times (he used *67 for the first two calls):
1. 2:25 p.m. (14:25) - Teresa didn't answer; Avery gets her voicemail and hangs up.
2. 2:35 p.m. (14:35) - Avery hangs up before Teresa's cell registers the call.
3. 4:35 p.m. (16:35) - At some point between 2:25 p.m. and 2:41 p.m., Teresa had set her phone to CFNA - Call Forwarding No Answer; Avery hangs up.
Per the faxed Cingular pre-bill, all activity on Teresa's phone ceased sometime after the 2:41 p.m. call (the person who called Teresa was not addressed at the trial). Her cell phone was no longer registering with any cell site by the time Avery called her at 4:35 p.m. If this is true, this means that the battery was dead or had been removed or the phone has been destroyed by the time the next incoming call was made, which was by Avery. No one else called her the rest of the day on October 31st. Her next incoming call was at 9:49 a.m. the next day, and then all calls went to her voicemail, which was full on Tuesday, according to her business partner Tom Pearce's testimony (concerned that he hadn't heard from her, he called multiple times on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday).
Oddly, she had many incoming calls throughout the morning and afternoon of October 31st, but after 4:35 p.m. nobody called her. It's not until 9:49 a.m. the next day that people start calling again. However, the day before, on Sunday, October 30th, she had very little phone activity, so perhaps little phone activity was a typical for Teresa on her days off.
According to the faxed Cingular pre-bill, on Sunday, she had 2 incoming calls, made 1 outgoing call, and checked her voicemail once. Her call activity ended at 5:40 p.m. that day.
4:41 pm - Incoming call
5:05 pm - Incoming call
5:26 pm - Teresa checks voicemail
5:40 pm - Teresa calls 920-662-0127
On Saturday, October 29th, Teresa was a photographer at a wedding and had plans to go to a Halloween party, so there was quite a bit of activity on her phone that day. She did receive a lead sheet from AutoTrader but didn't actually work that day since one lead "cancelled" and the only other lead (Schmitz/Sippel) was "rescheduled" for Monday. Teresa's phone was being serviced by different cell towers, so she was moving around quite a bit that day.
The two-page report from Cingular, in pre-bill format, is trial exhibit 361:
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Trial-Exhibit-361-Halbach-Cingular-Report.pdf
Summary of Avery's cell phone calls on October 31st (he also had a land line, 920-755-4860):
8:12 am - 877-425-7653 AutoTrader (number confirmed using trial exhibit 17)
8:39 am - Janda/Dassey land line 920-755-8715 (Avery's sister was selling her Dodge/Plymouth minivan )
10:32 am - 920-973-0330
12:07 pm - Wisconsin Dept of Health and Family Services* 608-266-3442
12:09 pm - 920-323-4038
12:09 pm - Wisconsin Bureau of Mental Health and Substance Abuse* 608-266-2717
12:11 pm - Wisconsin Bureau of Mental Health and Substance Abuse* 608-266-2717
12:13 pm - Wisconsin Bureau of Mental Health and Substance Abuse* 608-266-2717
12:16 pm - 608-268-3440
12:18 pm - Rich Rohl & Son Construction 920-758-2196
1:16 pm - Wisconsin State Public Defender's Office* 608-266-3440
2:25 pm - Teresa 920-737-4731
2:35 pm - Teresa 920-737-4731
4:35 pm - Teresa** 920-737-4731
5:57 pm - Chris Avery 920-755-2879
9:20 pm - Janda/Dassey land line 920-755-8715
* Avery's live-in girlfriend, Jodi, was in county jail for a DUI charge
** Avery told Fassbender (page 15) that he called her because he had a loader he wanted to sale
One page report—looks like a spreadsheet and not an official report from his cell phone carrier—is trial exhibit 359:
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Trial-Exhibit-359-Avery-Call-Log-2005Oct31.pdf
Transcript of Remiker's call to Wiegert
November 5, 2005 9:03 a.m.
Note: Reddit user Altwolf's analysis of this call has determined that it was edited to remove content as Remiker and Wiegert discuss the 2:27 p.m. and 2:41 p.m. incoming calls to Teresa's cell phone.
Dispatch: Calumet County Sheriff's Department.
Remiker: Good morning, this is Det. Remiker with Manitowoc County.
Dispatch: Good Morning.
Remiker: Is Wiegert or Dedering in at all?
Dispatch: Yes, I believe Wiegert's in his office, hold just a moment.
Wiegert: Niles...Hey.
Remiker: Hey, how you doing?
Wiegert: Oh, I’m doing just fucking great.
Remiker: You working all day or what?
Wiegert: Oh, I don’t know, just doing some reports. We got a bunch of shit... tips, kinda people who saw her....track some of those down.
Remiker: You do a flyover at all?
Wiegert: Yeah, they did those yesterday, I didn’t know, I was up in Green Bay with the boss all….
Remiker: Have you established a timeline at all? Where you think she went first or last, direction of travel?
Wiegert: Here’s what we think, we’re trying to track down a fax she had sent on Monday. We think it came from her apartment. Had a Green Bay number but it was attached to her computer and fax machine. We did a test fax this morning, and that’s what it came back to from her fax machine at her apartment.
Remiker: In?
Wiegert: In St. John’s. Where she was living.
Remiker: And that’s at what time?
Wiegert: That's at 12... 12:13 in the a.m. and we couldn't figure out how that fit in because we know she was seen later that afternoon.
Remiker: So the fax was before she went to Avery's & Zipperer’s?
Wiegert: Yeah.
Remiker: Okay, alright.
Wiegert: So that next, that day her first appointment, New Holstein, about 1:30 in the afternoon, then we believe she goes to Avery’s ...time…. we're not sure….
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, 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?
Wiegert: I don't know that.
Remiker: Alright.
Wiegert: I did get a call last night, there was a Knutsen, from Valders; actually said she... she claims... she left, she left me a voicemail which I haven't got; dispatch called me, she claimed, allegedly...she claims... she was on her way home and sees Teresa... and she sees Teresa pulled over taking a picture of a cow.
Remiker: Huh...she know Teresa?
Wiegert: No, just seen on the news.. all this kind of crap, I'm going to get my ducks in a row and drive up to Valders talk to her. Are you working today?
Remiker: Yeah, so if you need anything let me know.
Wiegert: Okay, so what I think I'm going to do, if she think she's pretty positive, I'll just get a hold of you and maybe we'll go up to that area and talk to her.
Remiker: Sure.
Wiegert: Take a look around so. You got a direct number there Davey?
Remiker: Yeah, give you my cell. Give me yours again, I always lose it.
Wiegert: Dave, I'm sure you're aware that the family... doing a search on their own.
Remiker: Yep, I read that note.
Wiegert: I called last night, I didn't know if they'll be trespassing on someone's property over there…. somebody…out the front door.... inaudible….. crazy fucks.
Remiker: Only thing we got is, someone called in, said 8:45, saying they seen a vehicle going northbound on I-43 near DePere a blue or green RAV4.
Wiegert: We got another one, she was seen on Double O and Appleton driving that vehicle. What we will do is put together a sheet with all the tips, so if yours come in on I-43 at 2 o'clock and Double O at 2 o'clock we can pretty much rule that out.
Remiker: Yep, that's a good idea.
Wiegert: So,
Remiker: K.
Wiegert: Let me get my shit…. I got…..crazy...oh fuck.
Remiker: I know... I know... I'm gonna let you go, need anything holler. I'm here till at least 4 o'clock.
Wiegert: Here till 4:00?
Remiker: Yep.
Wiegert: Sounds good man.
*At trial Dawn says Teresa called her at 2:27 p.m. and they talked for like 4-5 minutes, but Teresa never called AutoTrader that day. Plus, the first time Dawn was questioned (often more accurate) she said she tried to call Teresa that afternoon, and she thought that maybe the 2:27 p.m. call was her and that she left a message. That is a huge deal if Dawn's call was a voicemail and not a conversation with Teresa. That would mean that Teresa never talked to Dawn and that she never said (paraphrasing), "I'm on my way to the Avery's now." Dawn is the key witness in establishing the prosecution's timeline.
Wiegert Direct Exam, p. 188, Kratz purposely skips over what Wiegert was doing on November 4th:
24 We had also received a printout of some
25 phone calls, correction, a phone bill that --
1 Teresa's phone bill actually. So we had taken
2 that and tried to do some reverse directory
3 things to find out who some phone calls had been
4 made to. We also contacted Auto Trader because
5 we knew that she had worked for Auto Trader. And
6 they had given us some information, some
7 appointments that she was supposed to have on the
8 31st.
9 So we started following up on those type
10 of things on that Thursday night. We went as
11 long as we could on Thursday night, which I think
12 we worked till probably 11:30, maybe midnight or
13 so. We decided that we would meet back first
14 thing on Friday morning. I think we actually
15 came in early, around 7:00 in the morning.
16 That morning we sat down, myself, two
17 other investigators, and the sheriff, actually.
18 We sat down and put together kind of what we knew
19 at that point and decided that we would start
20 doing some interviews?
21 Q. Let me just stop you there, Investigator, because
22 I'm quite certain Mr. Strang would prefer I do
23 this more by question and answer. The 4th, that
24 is, the Friday, the 4th of November, did your
25 missing persons investigation continue?
1 A. Yes, it did.
2 Q. All right. And we have heard some of the details
3 of that missing persons investigation, but so
4 that I can move to the area of concern for why
5 you are being called at this moment as a witness,
6 the next day, that is, the 5th of November, were
7 you informed of and, in fact, did you participate
8 in a phone call from a Pam Sturm?
9 A. I did. You probably heard the phone call
10 earlier, in testimony. But we had received a
11 phone call at around 10:29 in the morning on that
12 Saturday from Pam Sturm, who had indicated that
13 she had located a vehicle matching the
14 description of Teresa's vehicle.
[...]
A. Yes, actually, after we had gotten a phone call,
6 I had phoned Detective Remiker to let him know
7 that we had just received information that
8 Teresa's vehicle was possibly found.
9 So I immediately called Detective
10 Remiker, obviously, because it's in Manitowoc
11 County. I told Detective Remiker what I knew at
12 that time and told him that he probably should
13 get out there as soon as possible and that we
14 would be on our way out there to assist him in
15 any way we could.
16 Q. All right. Now, as we have heard for the last
17 four weeks, investigative efforts continued from
18 the 5th of November, really, up through mid
19 February of this year, 2007; is that correct?
20 A. Absolutely, yes.
21 Q. And as you sit here today, Investigator Wiegert,
22 if an investigative lead, or if there was
23 something relevant in this case, would you act
24 upon that, even during the trial?
25 A. I would, or I would have somebody else do it for me, yes.
Document Links:
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Offer-of-Proof.pdf - Dan Morrow listed
https://youtu.be/tlyBVBJKTeM - phone call between Wiegert and Remiker, November 5th
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Trial-Exhibit-216-Wiegerts-Nov-3-Report.pdf - Wiegert's Nov. 3 Activity Report
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Jury-Trial-Transcript-Day-18-2007Mar07.pdf#page=185 - Wiegert's Testimony
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Trial-Exhibit-21-Lead-Form-2005Oct29.pdf - Appointment sheet for Schmitz/Sippel and Morrow
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Trial-Exhibit-361-Halbach-Cingular-Report.pdf - Two-page report from Cingular for Teresa, in pre-bill format, trial exhibit 361
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Trial-Exhibit-359-Avery-Call-Log-2005Oct31.pdf - One page report for Avery, trial exhibit 359
Dan Morrow's address and phone number from AutoTrader appointment sheet dated October 29th:
3030 Sonoran Ct, Green Bay, WI 54313
(920) 405-1998
By innocens at Reddit
From the trial testimony with Autotrader:
Q. Finally, Ms Pliszka, were you able to and did you, in fact, speak with Teresa Halbach later that day?
A. Yes, she called me at 2:27 and we talked --
Q. Who?
A. Teresa. Called me at 2:27 and we talked for a little while and she said, yeah, I'm able to go get that photo. By the way, it was the Avery brothers and I'm on my way out there right now.
Q. So 2:27 p.m. she told you she was on her way to the Avery property?
A. Yes.
Q. Let me ask you this, Ms Pliszka, how do you remember that call?
A. I remember because I looked at the time, because she didn't normally work, I think, past 1:00 and I thought it was kind of late for her to be going out there. So I happened to look at the clock at that time, so.
This bit: "By the way, it was the Avery brothers and I'm on my way out there right now."
It WAS the Avery brothers? Why the past tense? To me that only makes sense if she's already been there or is still there?
She got there to photograph Barb's van and finds it's on the Avery property, and tells Dawn, "btw it was the Avery property" - the 'BTW' also suggests she's talking after the fact? She's adding information that she's only just found out - that the van is on the Avery property?
If she hadn't got there yet, but suddenly realised it was on the Avery site, she would have said 'btw it's the Avery brothers"
"I'm on my way out there right now." Could Dawn have misheard, and she actually said 'I'm on my way out of there right now'?
END POST
Classic_Griswald wrote at Reddit:
Hmm. This is interesting.
If she had said, "I was able to get those photos by the way, it was the Avery brothers, I'm on my way out of there right now."
Really, there is very minor changes in detail. And let me ask you this, if Dawn had been interviewed by Wiegert and Fassbender and she said the above was what Teresa called and said to her, is this plausible?
Warning: Below is a fictional account, it is not fact, it is not the words of the people named. It is a hypothetical interaction between Dawn, the receptionist of Auto Trader, with two investigators, the same who interviewed Brendan. the purpose, simply to show that asking Dawn to slightly alter her story, would be no different than what we saw of them in their recorded interviews.
FASSBENDER: Are you sure you aren't mistaken Dawn?
WIEGERT: She said that?
FASSBENDER: Are you sure those were her exact words? Because we need to find the truth, even if it's foggy or hard to remember?
WIEGERT: Are you sure she didn't say, "yeah, I'm able to go get that photo. By the way, it was the Avery brothers and I'm on my way out there right now."
DAWN: ...
FASSBENDER: We just want to be accurate Dawn.
WIEGERT: We just want to get at the truth.
DAWN: It could have been what she said.
FASSBENDER: So its probably more than likely.
WIEGERT: So that's what she said then, she was heading to the Avery's when she called you.
DAWN: ...
FASSBENDER: This is good Dawn, this is really going to help your friend. I think with this we can find who killed her.
WIEGERT: You should be proud of helping us catch the killer Dawn, it's good honest people like you that help solve crimes.
With this in mind, do I think its possible it happened this way? I don't know. The big problem I have in this case is we see them coerce Brendan into giving a false confession. One that investigators with integrity themselves would dismiss. Or would prevent from happening because they'd make their own contamination chart
Something that's really troubling about that, is they interrogated Brendan 4 times in 48 hours, during the instance where he implicated himself. But I do not believe we have all of that on tape. Which means we have no idea what was said in earlier interviews. If they know they aren't recorded, how much worse can they get? Because on camera, they are terrible. Terrible in the sense they are actively creating a false confession. They go beyond the scope of the Reid technique, and they are putting words into Brendan's mouth.
So, do I think it's possible they put words into the mouths of other witnesses in this case? Well, yeah, basically. I stop short of declaring it quite obvious.
You can tell that Kratz had very expertly coached all his witnesses that were called. In fact, someone posted a video yesterday of M.H. answering a question, of when he last saw Teresa, and Kratz very quickly shakes his head no, as he's asking. If to reinforce the answer M.H. is to give.
It's actually kind of puzzling. But I suppose it could be chalked up to
At the 18:22 mark, watch Kratz shake his head 'no' as he asks M.H. the question, and link to original thread
The reason I mention this is because we saw a lot of evidence of witness coaching and witness tampering. There are a number of witnesses who had widely varying statements in this case. Originally, many did not see a fire. In fact, I believe only a single person, Robert Fabian, mentioned a fire which was a burn barrel fire, and he did not see a larger fire.
Here is a breakdown of who saw what, in what statements
And to note, we don't have any audio from the Robert Fabian interviews, or any police reports on them. We only have his court testimony. How many times was he spoken to?
The problem I have with this case is that witness statements have all been inconsistent. They all changed, favourable to the prosecutions case, by the time the trial happened. Most importantly, and especially with the police e.g. Lenk/Colborn, when asked for details of incidents or events around the time of the murder, many had no answers, sudden cases of bad memory, couldn't remember, whatever.
So it sounds like stories were getting spun, and many of them could not remember a thing around the time of when the murder happened. In fact, Lenk, could only cite a single event on Nov 1st, the day after T.H. went missing. He met with Roher, the D.A. who would recused himself from the case due to conflict of interest. That's it. Nothing else. And police take daily notes.
So in conclusion, I have a lot of trouble with testimony in this case. Maybe it is nothing and each of them are giving an accurate account, though it doesn't explain why many got it wrong originally, and later they all sorta, kinda, seemed to match up, but didn't entirely, and didn't really make sense. Or perhaps maybe the investigators and the prosecution were molding people's statements as they saw fit, explaining to people sympathetic to T.H. (friends and family), they needed it to catch her killer. Or threatening, bullying, pushing, etc. people who were members of the Avery camp. Barb, for instance, was arrested with THC possession, the charges however were filed 3-4 weeks later I think (?) - it was being discussed yesterday. We saw them trying to pressure Jodi in jail, to get her talking about Steven. In fact, I think the investigators in this case, showed pretty accurately they'd do whatever it took to get the statements they were looking for, not necessarily the truth.
END POST
Teresa had a history of getting hustle shots for some extra income. Looking at her completed sheets starting with September 19, 2005, she worked 15 days and did 12 hustle shots. Only Teresa would know about any hustle shots on October 31st since she generated the leads herself (or referrals would come from others). After the hustle shot, Teresa would notify AutoTrader by noting it on her completed appointment sheet that she faxed at the end of the day or the next morning. Teresa was killed before she was able to fax the completed sheet and overnight the photo disc, etc. for her October 31st appointments. So nobody knows whether or not Teresa did any hustle shots before or after her scheduled appointments on October 31st.
On October 31st, before leaving her home, Teresa had eight incoming calls and she made four outgoing calls. The duration of three of those incoming calls may have been long enough for callers to have left messages.
More details on Teresa's cell phone records at this link, page 4:
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Offer-of-Proof.pdfCredit for finding the tower by Zipperer's (tower 2192) goes to hos_gotta_eat_too at Reddit on March 30, 2016:
Part of Kratz's questioning of Steven Schmitz (Kratz seems convinced Teresa drove US-151 rather than other routes via I-43 or WI-42; does he know something the defense doesn't know?):
ReplyDeleteQ. After Ms Halbach concluded her transaction with you, do you know which way she left, which way she drove?
A. She headed north on Highway A.
Q. And for those of us not familiar with the New Holstein area, does going north on Highway intersect with any large roads that we would know?
A. It was formerly Highway 149, now I believe it's HH.
Q. What's north of that, is what I'm asking?
A. 151, if you keep going north.
Q. 151 would be the main road or the main trunk road between would be Chilton and the Calumet County area and Manitowoc; is that right?
A. Yes.
The other two routes are the about the same distance and driving time as US-151 if you're heading northeast toward Avery or Zipperer.
Those pesky cell towers decoded
ReplyDeletesubmitted on March 18, 2016 by JLWhitaker at Reddit
Check the subscriber activity record (phone record) for Teresa. The first cell tower is which one connected to her, the ICell.
I got tweets about this. The first four digits are the tower designation. The last number refers to the 1/3 of the tower and the direction it covers.
For example, if a tower was 89251, the tower is 8925 and the 1 is for the direction the radio points: North or Northeast. a 2 points East/Southeast, and 3 points South/Southwest.
BUT it depends on the company how they numbered 1, 2, 3 directions.
Here's an article about it: http://people.csail.mit.edu/bkph/cellular_repeater_numerology.shtml
There will be more comments about this soon.
TH moved from towers 2111 (home) to 2110 at 1.52, leaving Schmitz, to 21923, to 21921, then BACK to 2110. The question will be then if 2110 and 2111 are near each other at all. (see her phone record).
edit: extended the tower full numbers: 21923 for 3 calls, then last on that tower 21921 at 2.27, the call with AutoTrader Dawn.
[–]Arseovrteakettl 2 points 1 day ago
throw into the mix: back then when calls went to voicemail, with calls within the same network, the cell tower listed for the call was that of the caller. The two calls that went to 2110 both went to voicemail.
[–]JLWhitaker[S] 1 point 1 day ago
Snap. I just made that same comment to Ductit. We've learned that from the Syed case -- the network 'favors' the calling party and the first tower that sees the receiver makes the connection. Having said that, I'm not sure that is still the case with the technology of 2005 in this part of the US. But it is definitely something that must be considered as having an influence and checked out.
[–]LorenzoValla 3 points 1 day ago
keep in mind 2 things.
1) phone records only show data related to phone calls. towers record the movement of the phone even when no calls are being made, but those records weren't used in the trial. it's quite possible that KZ now has them.
2) towers only register the phone for certain carriers, so a tower in my back yard could be invisible to my phone.
[–]UnsinkableJesus 4 points 1 day ago
Just an FYI it is possible to connect to towers that are not the closest tower to the persons location.
Everyone here would be wise to go look at all of the cell tower evidence and analysis from the Adnan Syed case.
Unfortunately even with perfect data from that day, it still doesn't get you very far unless the towers are 10-20 miles apart in distance.
This article gives a good summary. Even two people on identical devices standing right next to each other can be routed to different towers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/experts-say-law-enforcements-use-of-cellphone-records-can-be-inaccurate/2014/06/27/028be93c-faf3-11e3-932c-0a55b81f48ce_story.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/4ax5m7/those_pesky_cell_towers_decoded/
[–]UnsinkableJesus 3 points 1 day ago
ReplyDeleteEveryone should watch this two part series:
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/the-docket-serial-special-part-1-398861891897
What I've learned about the cell evidence is - If you think you understand the cell phone evidence, you don't understand the cell phone evidence. It gets incredibly complex.
permalinkparent
[–]stOneskull 3 points 1 day ago
That was fantastic.
I had stopped reading anything about Adnan. Looks like some good news for him. Great update.
And great info. Especially about not knowing which tower section is used with incoming calls.
Not to take away from the puzzle though :-) In reality Zellner is 3 steps ahead and we're playing. And why not? I like to think there is something to gain.
A couple of differences I noticed between cases. They didn't know where the car and phone went that day. I think they had a lot more towers then. Three square miles each one? If we could be so lucky as that! It would put Teresa pretty close to where she was only 15 minutes away from Schmitz! I think these towers must be further apart. Besides the better tech, it's also pretty rural compared.
May be trivial and moot in the end, due to both: too limited data to conclude she left Avery's; and that Zellner is on top of it by now, but an interesting exercise anyway.
[–]smash-_- 2 points 1 day ago
Interesting cell tower maps here: https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/4ar229/map_of_cell_tower_locations_near_mishicot_maribel/
[–]JLWhitaker[S] 2 points 1 day ago
This is now. No idea what was back then.
http://janwhitaker.com/cell-towers-in-mishicot-wisconsin/
[–]JLWhitaker[S] 1 point 1 day ago
Someone else pointed me to https://www.reddit.com/r/HiveMindMaM/comments/46x4oo/cellsite_map/
The problem with using cell towers in online systems now, like the one I used in my blog post is that it is showing current towers. Cingular was bought by ATT and the towers could have been reconfigured in the last 10 years for all sorts of technical and licensing reasons.
[–]stOneskull 1 point 1 day ago
my working theory right now is 2110 being manitowoc and 2192 being two rivers.
[–]JLWhitaker[S] 1 point 1 day ago
Do you think the ATT acquisition would mean any records are gone now unless preserved for the trial in 2005?
There was mention that one of the investigators got tower info, but who knows what that really meant. They aren't introduced into evidence I don't think. Am I wrong?
[–]carbon8dbev 1 point 20 hours ago
Actually, Cingular bought AT&T in early 2004, so cingular would most likely have been using AT&T's towers by late 2005.
http://www.att.com/Common/merger/files/pdf/Cingular_timeline7.pdf
Reported Feb 2004: http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/17/technology/cingular_att/
tower locations http://www.antennasearch.com/ once you process the requested address, you can view map locations and/or "download records" which show the year the towers were installed to see if they were extant in 2005.
Find cell towers/coverage by company: http://opensignal.com/
This may not be the complete picture but hopefully gets closer to it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/4ax5m7/those_pesky_cell_towers_decoded/
[–]Shamrockholmes9 3 points 5 days ago
ReplyDeleteI agree completely! I've always had problems with Dawn's testimony. I was also wondering how Wiegart did a reverse lookup of the 2:27pm call and got AutoTrader? TH's phone records show the 2:27pm call was an incoming call to TH's phone, and does not show a number. What was there to reverse lookup?
I am skeptical that this call was actually from AutoTrader, especially considering Dawn's awkward testimony; remembered the exact time 2:27pm, didn't remember that she was the one who called TH (said TH called her), said it was odd that TH was working past 1pm, so then why is Dawn calling TH if she thought TH was done working an hour and a half earlier?
[–]Sinsaint36 1 point 5 days ago
You're missing the 1:52 call or were his records only showing calls Teresa dialed?
permalink
[–]hos_gotta_eat_too[S] 6 points 5 days ago
that call was not in his statement at all...and it was a 1 min. 20 second call..so it appears to be something that fucks up the "gonna get Avery" timeline.
You would have to assume he did the reverse lookups later at his computer, so the plan could be in full play, which is why he lists the 11:43 call to Avery even though that number is registered to Barb at that time.
permalinkparent
[–]Sinsaint36 3 points 5 days ago
The same report lists the phone as belonging to "B. Janda" so I was wondering when the number switched to Steven Avery. It appears the report was written on November 5th about the events of November 3rd. Maybe when Colborn went out to Avery's place and he admitted Teresa dealt with him that day Wiegert just switched the names. Assuming that's what happened Wiegert should have noted it in his report as he had with Schmidt.
My bigger issue is the ICell locations (and lack there of for Avery). Avery's records should be available, including ICell location, if for no other reason than to place Avery at the yard and then use Teresa's ICell location to place the two together at some point. I find the ICell location at 1:52 interesting. It placed her at 21103. The calls in between vary in location from 21921 to 21923. At 2:41 she was at 21101 which would place her near the location she was at when she got the 1:52 call.
[–]Sinsaint36 1 point 4 days ago
From what I've been reading 2110 would be the same tower. End digit 1 would be the north facing tower. End digits 2 and 3 would face southeast and southwest. If that information is accurate (which I'm no expert on so it could be inaccurate) wherever she was at 1:52 she was in close proximity to at 2:41.
[–]stOneskull 1 point 4 days ago
what've you been reading?
[–]Sinsaint36 1 point 4 days ago
http://people.csail.mit.edu/bkph/cellular_repeater_numerology.shtml
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/4aci62/i_have_a_couple_of_wtf_things/
Sinsaint36 - "The same report lists the phone as belonging to "B. Janda" so I was wondering when the number switched to Steven Avery."
DeleteThe phone number for Barb Janda never changed to Steven Avery. I've always thought it telling that the 'order of TH's appointments changed' and I wanted to know when/how....all of the following from the CASO Investigative Reports...
11/03 5:00pm Lemieux Report (initial contact with Angela Schuster at Auto Trader)
Sippel (Schmitz), Janda, Zipperer
11/03 5:30pm Wiegert Report
Sippel (Schmitz), Janda, Zipperer (says Lemieux informed me...)
Wiegert & Lemieux go to TH's house and get printed list of her phone record and he indicates 'in doing reverse directory' he identifies several of the numbers on the phone record.
Wiegert states in his report that 920-755-8715 "lists to a Steven Avery". (Ironically he assigns the number to SA before any documentation shows the call/number is related.) The number was registered legally to Thomas Janda, then Barb Janda, and then Barb Janda and now Scott Tadych. It's NEVER been registered to Steven Avery.
11/03 Dedering Report
States he looked up 920-755-8715 and it belonged to Thomas Janda.
11/03 Pagel Report
Says Wiegert confirmed the Kiel (Sippel) photo shoot. And here's the twist...then he says one of the photo shoots in Mishicot area was GZ and THE SECOND photo shoot was to be at ASY. (the order of appointments just changed) Wiegert and Pagel now contact TV/Radio stations to get the word out about TH missing. And the story begins...
The cell tower pings may not be an exact science, but hopefully they are enough to show the path TH took on 10/31. I have no doubt the testimonies of Schuster and Dawn are absolutely false and the Wiegert twists and Zipperer vagueness just add to the confusion. The altering of phone records is shameful (and criminal) and I hope that KZ has original records to show every in/out call. There is so much deception in this entire case, it's sickening.
Follow up to thread: I'm missing something with AutoTrader, Dawn, and the appointments.--- more weirdness.
ReplyDeletesubmitted 7 days ago * by mrvitolives
Angela Schuster's testimony doesn't make sense like Dawn's, the state's offer of proof contradicts Dawn and the cingular doc it references, and Weigert says Dawn initially said the 2:27 call went to voicemail.
A couple docs are linked at the bottom... the prior thread, offer of proof, cingular records and audio of Weigert/Remiker.
Dawn receives the B. Janda call at 8:12AM on the 31st. In the offer of proof (page 4), which is a document we've been reviewing, we have "Teresa Halbach sent and received relevant calls from her cell phone on October 31, 2005, as reflected in business records obtained from Cingular Wireless, as follows":
The first one says Dawn Pliszka calls TH at 9AM. Well, that makes sense, because... wait... what?? There is no 9AM call on Teresa's cingular records... the rest of the calls on the offer of proof are specific to the very minute. It would make sense that if Dawn got the call from SA at 8:12AM, that she would look it up, make the account, etc. and then call TH at 9AM, a reasonable hour for a workday. On the stand, Dawn says it is the 9:46AM call... she waits an hour and a half to simply call and tell Teresa she has a lead? Weird.
Okay fine. Let's go with that despite the apparent contradictions. That call appears on the record at 9:46... no caller information appears, as expected, since it is an incoming call.
Now it gets weirder... we discussed in the other thread how Dawn was mistaken to say on the stand that Teresa called her in the afternoon at 2:27... the cingular report and the offer of proof have it as incoming to Teresa... and testimony that followed was a little bizarre. But now we come to Angela Schuster, who testifies Teresa called her just after 11:00AM (Dawn had left for lunch) to say she can make the Janda shoot and to fax the information. Okay... that makes sense, too because... wait... what?? There is no call to AutoTrader on the cingular records around then; it is not on the offer of proof of relevant business calls... in fact there doesn't appear to be any calls dialed from Teresa to AutoTrader in the cingular report.
There are only two cingular record calls unaccounted for by the offer of proof between 11-12 AM. One at 11:10 that is only 5 seconds, so not that one... and one at 11:25 for 43 seconds. Okay, so it must be that one, right? But, then that one is an INCOMING call also, like 9:46, with no number dialed. Why is Angela Schuster now calling at 11:25 while Dawn is at lunch... she doesn't know anything about Teresa's B Janda call. She says TH calls to tell her she can make it, and Angela leaves a note for Dawn. Dawn says she gets the note after returning from lunch (to send out the same day shoot fax). Did she recall incorrectly both the time and who called whom, or just the latter? It is similarly weird to Dawn's 2:27 call to Teresa.
So now Dawn faxes the shoot sheet, presumably, after lunch... and now it must be about 12:00-12:30. Well, Teresa hasn't even left her house yet... Dawn must know that, because she is faxing her the info to her house. So now we are back to Dawn's weird testimony that she remembered the time of 2:27 because Teresa called her, and Teresa didn't usually work past 1PM... she HAS to know that Teresa is working past one. She hasn't even LEFT YET after noon, and Dawn is calling HER at 2:27. Yikes... what a mess. But then...
the kicker... Dawn initially says the 2:27 call went to voicemail according to Weigert. Sooooooooooo.... confusing.... Links:
Prior Thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/4a0o39/im_missing_something_with_autotrader_dawn_and_the/
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/4a5im8/follow_up_to_thread_im_missing_something_with/
Updated 3-20-2016 at 11:24 AM EST:
ReplyDeleteAdded the fact that Angela Schuster of AutoTrader lied in her testimony, as did Dawn Pliszka. Teresa did not call AutoTrader around 11:00 a.m. and talk to Angie, and Angie didn't leave a message for Dawn saying Teresa called to say she would be able to make it to 12930 A Avery Road. If they lied about this, then we can deduce that Dawn lied about the 2:27 p.m. phone call where she claims Teresa said she was "on her way right now to Avery's." From a position of authority, all investigators had to say to witnesses was that "we know it went down something like this; your version doesn't make sense; could it be this way?," and convince well-meaning people to try to make their reality line up with a different version. Dawn's first call to Teresa on October 31st was the 1 minute 6 second voicemail at 8:17 a.m., not, as she testified, the 9:46 a.m. call that lasted only 33 seconds; and her second and last call to Teresa on October 31st was probably the 2:41 p.m. call, a voicemail with a duration of 60 seconds. She did not call Teresa at 2:27 p.m. and talk to her for almost five minutes. Also, see the new chart below indicating the probable locations of the cell towers that Teresa's phone pinged. Finally, included chart of non-deleted voicemail records for October 31st and modified the image from Kratz's "Offer of Proof."
[–]HuNuWutWen 26 points 15 hours ago
ReplyDeleteListen to his statements for fuck sakes...
He is KEENLY AWARE of EVIDENCE and PLANTING...
He is openly talking about evidence and planting, to a TV reporter...6 days after the alleged incident...and he has been singing this exact same tune since the 3rd of Nov....
...look at him, as he says how he has nothing to hide...
... and he allowed them to search, because...
... he has nothing to hide...he is telling the truth...
THE POINT is...this is apparently the same guy who just left ALL THAT EVIDENCE ???...totally easy to find?...we are not even talking about microscopic CSI type shit ...We are talking about plainly visible objects that Helen Keller could locate...
The rav4, complete with blood and DNA...remember now, as you watch this interview, Avery , as you see him, has allegedly just brutally murdered and incinerated/obliterated a corpse, in his back yard, no less...
... spent a minimum of 6 hours dousing, burning, chopping, absolutely sickening, gruelling "work" to eliminate "evidence"...yet here he sits at his weekend cabin, kicking back with family??...talking about "evidence"???
...and the cops are "finding evidence" literally surrounding his trailer...as he speaks...
Sorry, I believe Avery was totally framed, and I believe Ms. Zellner will expose the Framers...
[–]VillageIdiot34 1 point 11 hours ago
agree all the way. stevens the only one who passes my bullshit meter. everyone else from mam is lying or hiding info
[–]HuNuWutWen 7 points 13 hours ago
...And then he gets a visit from his old buddy Andy Colborn, on the 3rd...
"Hey Steve, this girl is missing, what do you know?..."...she came, she took photos, she left...
..no red flag there huh?...okay, I can buy that..but..
...then the cops show up again, next day, basically call Avery a liar by disregarding his assertion that Teresa came, took photos, then left...they ask to search...
...did the cops specifically tell Steven they would only look in the trailer?...I doubt it...
...or did they say, " you don't mind if we take a look AROUND, do you Steven?..after all, you've got nothing to hide, right?..Steven..."...again, no red flag there...
...Avery has icewater in his veins...man, this guy is slick...that's 2 times...gettin' a little bit harder to disregard these warning signs...but wait!...
...and then the TV crew shows up, asking "polygraph" questions?...what the?...
...yeah, no red flag there...after all these visits, Avery doesn't clue in that the cops are maybe onto him?...sorry, I just don't buy it...
...remember now, if he is actually guilty, he knows that all this easy to find shit is sitting right where it is...LOOK how easy it was for Pam of God, and all the other "evidence" to be "found"...
...so we are dealing with a criminal mastermind who would put Keyser Soze to shame...
... except for his one moronic tendency to leave an evidence trail that Stevie Wonder could find, with his hands tied behind his back?...it's "inconsistent"...lol...
...and that brings us to this interview, on the 6th, up at the cabin, Avery is shrugging his shoulders and saying..."there is nothing I can do to prevent them from fucking with me , I have no way of knowing what they are doing..."..
But what draws my attention is Avery himself, the chronology of his interactions and behaviors regarding police...
It is very possible that the reason Avery doesn't know anything about all this evidence is simple: He didn't murder Teresa Halbach, and he has no idea that she is even dead, at this particular time, and he has no idea about any of this "evidence".
It is possible that Steven Avery is telling the Truth.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/4bbdye/lengthy_interview_with_sa_in_crivitz_on_nov_605/
[–]justkimberly 1 point 3 hours ago
ReplyDeleteHe says 'they must be going through hell, because they lost someone.. or whatever.' Then he corrects himself and says she's gotta be out there somewhere. It is subtle, but he's clearly aware that he shouldn't be saying she's dead when he knows full well she is.
I have tossed over this as well but I think at that point, it was the common assumption that she was dead, and he could have equally been thinking in that pause of a moment "oh sh*t, she is dead and they are going to pin this on me" and then recovered. Sort of like how her brother said "we need to start the grieving process" (paraphrasing) before they knew she was in fact dead.
[–]justkimberly 1 point 3 hours ago
He says 'they must be going through hell, because they lost someone.. or whatever.' Then he corrects himself and says she's gotta be out there somewhere. It is subtle, but he's clearly aware that he shouldn't be saying she's dead when he knows full well she is.
I have tossed over this as well but I think at that point, it was the common assumption that she was dead, and he could have equally been thinking in that pause of a moment "oh sh*t, she is dead and they are going to pin this on me" and then recovered. Sort of like how her brother said "we need to start the grieving process" (paraphrasing) before they knew she was in fact dead.
[–]Cheerstojustice 7 points 17 hours ago
Came across this, interesting to read how things were reported/developed during the week after her disappearance http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?31696-WI-Teresa-Marie-Halbach-25-Manitowoc-31-Oct-2005
[–]onepieceofgumleft[S] 3 points 15 hours ago
Very interesting to look back and see how it was being reported at the time , and how the media was putting SA's name out there immediately , before little or nothing was determined yet.
[–]Fuffinator 7 points 19 hours ago
I hadn't seen this before either - thanks. Interesting that even SA knew at that point that his place wasn't the last that TH visited. I don't get a dishonest/deceptive vibe about SA at all - he has always come across as being open and honest in his interviews to me. I'm sure I'd be a heck of a lot more pissed off and upset than him in the same circumstances.
[–]SSlipperySlope 12 points 18 hours ago
I couldn't agree more. I don't think he is an angel by any means but he is not a murderer. He openly spoke with media providing a number of interviews and was extremely cooperative with police from the start of her disappearance. He is clearly worried about police framing him but you have to remember that he sat in on those depositions and was likely advised of possible police retaliation from his lawyer before TH even disappeared. I think Steve knew that no matter what he said or how solid his alibi that it would make no difference in court (as seen in the rape case) so he tried to speak out through the media and let people see he had no reason to do this. Crazy thing is that police/prosecution used the same media to put him on trial in public demolishing any positive image of him. I feel bad for Avery because he tried to explain that he was not involved and feared police framing from day one. We need more Zellners in the world who are willing to stand up for a poor, defenseless man like Avery speak up on his behalf. For a man who has been in prison over ten years I don't understand why Kratz and various people are still coming out of the woodwork in a resurgence to continue to slander Avery today. There has to be something big that the State of WI does not want uncovered. Last I checked the prosecution is supposed to rest it's case at the end of trial but yet Lratz is still trying Avery 10 years later in the court of public opinion which is starting to create more reason to doubt the validity of the State's case.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/4bbdye/lengthy_interview_with_sa_in_crivitz_on_nov_605/
[–]dvb05 1 point 6 hours ago
ReplyDeletea little overzealous in procuring this conviction
I'm not sure if you are aware of how the law works, if the police were proven to have planted even a shred of evidence then the whole case would become a mistrial and Avery walks free regardless of a presumption of guilt or innocence.
Folk who are on the fence on whether he is innocent or guilty and those who think he is innocent seem to very quickly come to this understanding, oddly I see many folk who think he is guilty without doubt not get this damning factor, not saying you here, but enough people to be alarmed about on this sub.
[–]dvb05 1 point 6 hours ago
Have you seen Dave Begokta's video's on youtube? I think he used to live in two rivers and alluded a lot to "a club" that basically consisted of all sorts of high up respected officials who had their swingers type group where they wanted to recruit him in and reacted angrily when he refused.
Could be total BS but you do hear a lot about these kind of established cult sects and the power they have in their own circles, I have a strong feeling they probably exist today and more than likely would have back then too.
[–]wanttruth 1 point 6 hours ago
I have seen his videos and really wish he would have presented himself better, I think if he would have gotten himself together and presented more facts he would have been a lot more believable...not saying he is lying, just wish he would have presented it better. with the way the good ole' boy system works around here nothing would surprise me at all.
[–]captain_jim2 2 points 12 hours ago*
Are there any shots of the cuts on his fingers? He always said he cu t it up in Crivitz - it would be interested to see the lack of any injury at this point -- that would clear up a lot of doubt about the blood in TH's car being planted or not.
[–]cracracracra 2 points 11 hours ago
Good call.
@13:28, you get a look at his right hand, and there are no cuts or bandages.
[–]FoxyMcJ 1 point 6 hours ago
Wait, what? I thought Brenden lost like 40 pounds between this event and his March "confession" but here it is just a couple days after she goes missing, and he is a very skinny little kid. He had ALREADY lost that weight. Period. He didn't loose 40 pounds between Oct 31 and Nov 6.
[–]dolenyoung 1 point 2 hours ago
There it is! Good catch, Foxy!
[–]SmellyKratz 1 point 2 hours ago
@10 minutes: do we have any specific statements or reports regarding the report she was seen in Green Bay? Sounded like a fact that may have been known at that time.
@12:30 : look at those disgusting fingernails. No way he killed someone but didn't have any blood in there. He hasn't washed those in weeks.
[–]onepieceofgumleft[S] 1 point an hour ago
The comment about an appointment in Green Bay intrigued me too. Someone in this thread said it was on TH's missing person poster as well.
Don't know if it was a fact or a rumour. But SA also heard a rumour from a local (Tammy Weber ..?) that a cop is the one that put the RAV on his property , and we know there might be a lot of truth to that rumour. So maybe the Green Bay rumour had some truth to it as well ... ??
[–]SmellyKratz [score hidden] 41 minutes ago
Yeah....poster said she may have been traveling to the green bay area.
Me thinks the cell phone tower data will show that this is true.
As an aside, you can see Avery had a tell when he's speaking the truth (his head nods up and down after he speaks, almost as of he's reconfirming what he just said). He does this throughout the interview, and if he's lying about the TH stuff, he sure has me played for a fool.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/4bbdye/lengthy_interview_with_sa_in_crivitz_on_nov_605/
Why are there 2 different Rav 4 suvs? I thought Teresa's rav 4 was green? The Rav 4 in the crime lab is Blue/purple?
DeleteBLOG POST MODIFICATIONS ON 3/30/2016
ReplyDeleteAdded the following to clarify that I can only guess at the cell site locations based on the 1:52 p.m. and 2:41 p.m. calls pinging tower 2110. Zellner's statement to Newsweek on 3/29/2016 makes me believe that that guess is accurate:
"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,” Zellner says. “They screwed it up.”
The following was added to this blog post today at 6 p.m. EST.
The image below shows the probable locations of the cell sites based on the fact that wherever Teresa was when her phone pinged 21103 at 1:52 p.m. she was again in this same area when her phone pinged 21101 at 2:41 p.m.
2:41 p.m. - 1:52 p.m. = 49 minutes [20 minutes + 12 minutes + 3 minutes + 15 minutes = 50 minutes]:
1:52 p.m. + 20 minutes to Avery's = 2:12 p.m.
2:12 p.m. + 12 minutes for Avery shoot = 2:24 p.m.
2:24 p.m. + 3 minutes after leaving Avery's = 2:27 p.m.
2:27 p.m. + 15 minutes to Zipperer's = 2:42 p.m.
The theory is that at 1:52 p.m. she was about 15-20 minutes from Avery's. She arrived at Avery's around 2:12 p.m., when she made a call to Zipperer and then checked voicemail. She then took a picture of the Dodge minivan in front of Avery and Janda's homes. About 10 minutes later, around 2:24 p.m., she was done and heading west on Highway 147 and then south on County Road Q. At 2:27 p.m., while still in the general area of Avery's, she answered the 2:27 p.m. incoming call. From that point, it would be 15 minutes to Zipperer's.
[–]screamingforoxygen 3 points 10 hours ago
ReplyDeleteMike denied deleting any messages. He said he listened to them all and was not aware of deleting any of them. The defense showed with a witness it appeared messages were deleted.
I do not remember Ryan ever admitting to listening to her VM or gaining access to anything other than her online account.
[–]FustianRiddle 1 point 9 hours ago
They also have no concrete evidence that they did delete the voicemails. I'm sure there's some sort of objection to that KK could have made.
[–]devisan 1 point 9 hours ago
Mike said he didn't delete anything knowingly. That's "asked and answered", and if the lawyer keeps asking it again, opposing counsel objects and is sustained.
Michael M Barndt at Post Crescent
ReplyDeleteThey can retrieve those logs from their servers at anytime going back as far as they want as long as a proper warrant is secured. The logs Zellner has now are ones the Kratz craftfully concealed from the defense. The defence received an amended log, basically a shorthand version of Halbach's log. Zellner has the whole shebang. Furthermore, cell phone data is much better understood nowadays. Technicians are now able to basically autopsy the cell data to its exacting transmissinal components. Zellner, I am positive, has this locked up. This type of science is no secret anymore. And this is only one simple aspect of her evidence combing. Her team is all over everything.
Graham Tucker at Post Crescent
Yes, a big thank you to Robert Hermann for his help in securing the conviction against Avery, same Robert Hermann who owns the salvage yard and took the completion from Avery, same Robert Hermann who supplied the phone tower records, and same Hermann who was friends with Kushe and Zipperer family. They all kiss each other asses.
http://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/local/steven-avery/2016/04/06/politician-averys-eyes-prove-hes-guilty/82586402/
The Cingular record itself is identified as page 1 and 2. But if you think of those as pages in a book, we're missing the cover and one other page as paginated by the fax machine itself (running along the side of the paper, top left, above West Palm Beach, which is Cingular head office I think).
ReplyDeleteBUT if there are earlier days in the call record that were also sent, which would have followed on from FAX pages 3 and 4, those aren't here. The cover sheet may have said they were sending 20 pages. We don't know.
Yes, page 1 and 2 of the report but 3 and 4 of the fax. I have never seen a 2-page cover sheet. What was page 2 of the fax? A report of texts, another report, or some random page without pertinent information? Imagine incomplete information that prompts one to believe we don't have all the details.
A question about the 2:41 phone call. Opinions please! self.MakingaMurderer
ReplyDeletesubmitted by ahhhreallynow on April 30, 2016
This was from the "Defendants Memo on Teresa Halbach". I don't know if it has been brought up before but I found it interesting.
"No objection to the state eliciting brief testimony from one Halbach family member that the family has not heard from or seen Teresa since **2:45 p.m. on October 31,2005." My question would be: Would this be connected to the 2:41 call that went to voice mail?
Were any of the Halbachs every asked when the last time they spoke to Teresa? I just read KH's testimony and she was asked by Kratz if she heard TH voice after the 31st. MH was also asked the same question. As far as I can tell neither was asked if they had heard/spoke to her on that day. If they did was that call erased or did she make it from her home phone?
Source: http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Defendants-Memo-on-Teresa-Halbach.pdf
[–]Sillinesscjlg
Very odd for Kratz to word a question like that! You may be on to something!
[–]MrDoradus
Didn't that call go straight to voice-mail another number* because of the CFNA function?
This was probably just the prosecution establishing a timeline and marking this point (when her cell phone is last active, communicating with a tower) as her disappearing and not having contact with anyone ever again. And not connected to any actual contact Teresa had with her family members. That's my opinion at least.
But do we actually know who made that call?
[–]ahhhreallynow
It did. What bothers me is it shows up on the voice mail report, shows up on her phone bill (exhibit 361) but Kratz leaves it out of his little list he presented in court (exhibit 362).
Establishing the timeline makes sense. Something about that phone call bugs me tho.
[–]MrDoradus
My guess as to why he left it out of the exhibit list is that it would have raised questions either way. Possibly about who called her but more importantly, imho, which cell phone tower handled that call.
When Buting mentioned that particular call because it was the last cell phone tower that handled it, Kratz objected faster than light. If this is the information Zellner has (and not additional ping data) that puts Teresa away from the Avery property. This could be why it was never mentioned and objected to by Kratz when it was mentioned by the defense.
So it bugs me too for many reasons.
[–]ahhhreallynow
Exactly. The prosecution contends someone destroyed or turned her phone off so that call went to voicemail, and that was done on Avery property. I think there is another option. She could have manually sent all calls to another number because she was driving or somewhere where she didn't want to bothered with calls. It was an option at the time to forward cell calls to a different number such as a home phone to have an answering machine pick the message up. I have done it. Kratz was very quick to object. It makes no sense to leave it out of his exhibit. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
[–]MrDoradus
That's not an option, that's exactly what happened, there is no other way. Someone turned on the CFNA option somewhere between 2:27 and 2:41 pm and her phone was still turned on at 2:41 pm, because the CFNA function doesn't work when it's turned off. That's why the rest of the calls (from 4:35 pm on) are listed differently, no response from Teresa's phone at all. Meaning it could have been destroyed/turned off at 4:30 pm for example.
And that's why the phone still sent out its location when it forwarded the call to the designated number at 2:41pm and that could have been the last known approximate location of Teresa's phone, most likely her too.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/4h5r1y/a_question_about_the_241_phone_call_opinions/
Did they ever get Teresa's full phone records? If they got them, they didn't use them and they didn't list them in the evidence log.
ReplyDeleteClarification on **multiple** search warrants issued to Cingular.
submitted by res_ispa_loquitur on May 2, 2016
There are 5 different attempts by CASO (that we know of) to obtain TH's "official" cell phone records. I included the narrative associated with each warrant below and bolded the relevant information. Based on who narrated the reports and the description of each warrant, I determined that at least 5 different requests were prepared within 12 days.
Each attempt was legally incomplete (failed to specify time periods, type of data requested, etc.) and based on the type of information that LE requested, the wrong type of document was used (search warrant in lieu of order).
On page 6 of AT&T's transparency report, a summary of each type of required document is provided.
http://about.att.com/content/dam/csr/transpreport/ATT_Transparency%20Report.pdf
This document also contains helpful information about the steps that must be taken before obtaining phone records. Although this might be new information to all of you, this information should not be new to LE, especially LE trained in crime analysis. So, either LE were completely clueless and had no idea what Cingular was requesting each time, or there were very specific reasons why they chose not to comply with Cingular's requests. Either way, it appears that after their 5th attempt was ignored by Cingular, they gave up and managed to find an "alternate" method.
https://cryptome.org/isp-spy/le-tel-spy.pdf
CONTINUED...
CASO Report
ReplyDeletehttp://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CASO-Investigative-Report.pdf
Page 40, by Baldwin (11/04/05) - A Subpoena was also prepared for CINGULAR cell phone for the information on TERESA's account as well as other information needed (warrant #1). . . The other two Subpoenas were turned over to Inv. DEDERING to have faxed to the appropriate departments.
Page 43, By Dedering (11/04/05 1310 hrs.) - I did have contact with a representative of CINGULAR WIRELESS regarding a court order that was prepared by Inv. BALDWIN and facsimile transmitted to CINGULAR WIRELESS (warrant #1). CINGULAR WIRELESS folks advised me that they required an eavesdropping warrant similar to a Title 3 Wiretap Warrant in order to access any voice mail records.
Page 53, by Dedering (11/04/05 1905 hrs.) - I did speak with a representative of CINGULAR WIRELESS Legal Dept. The representative advised me that they had received a facsimile transmittal for the Global Positioning System coordinates, as well as the digital number recorder request on TERESA HALBACH's phone (warrant #2). The representative indicated that the Court Order that they received did not cover any historical data as far as calls placed from TERESA HALBACH's cellular phone or calls received by TERESA HALBACH's cellular phone. She stated that we could obtain subscriber information with a Subpoena, and that a Court Order would be required to get information regarding cellular towers that the calls were completed to. She did indicate that we could get the information by declaring this an exigent circumstance, and she indicated that in that event, a Court Order would need to be forwarded to CINGULAR WIRELESS within the next 48 business hours. I did advise the representative that I considered this to be exigent circumstances and did fax out the required documentation declaring this to be exigent circumstances.
Page 124, by Dedering (11/06/05) - I further received a Search Warrant allowing us to examine certain records held by CINGULAR WIRELESS regarding TERESA HALBACH's cellular number (warrant #3). This was received by me at 1350 hrs.
Search Warrant File
Search warrant issued on 11/06/05 to Cingular (Judge Fox) (warrant #4) - NOW, THEREFORE, in the name of the State of Wisconsin, you are commanded forthwith to search or cause the release of the said records of Cingular for the information, data or recorded calls aforesaid and cause the voice mail messages to be secured and preserved and return this Warrant within forty-eight hours, before the said Court. * Search warrant returned on 11/16/05, by Wiegert - Warrant not served (likely because they intended to replace this warrant with warrant #5, which contains the court's seal).
Search warrant issued on 11/16/05 to Cingular (Judge Poppy) (warrant #5) - Now, THEREFORE, in the name of the State of Wisconsin, you are commanded forthwith to search or cause the release of the said records of Cingular for the information, data or recorded calls aforesaid and cause the voice mail messages to be secured and preserved and return this Warrant within forty-eight hours, before the said Court. * Search warrant returned on 11/22/05, by Wiegert - No information from this search warrant has been provided as of 11/22/05 to this agency.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/4hl600/clarification_on_multiple_search_warrants_issued/
Only conclusion I have about the phone records is an unfortunate one. self.MakingaMurderer
ReplyDeletesubmitted on May 2, 2016 by res_ispa_loquitur
No matter how doctored or fictitious they are, defense agreed to them being admitted into evidence. Unless there were additional records, like maybe the real ones, that weren't disclosed to defense, the only argument KZ can raise against those records is ineffective assistance. And I hate to admit it, but I think it's a valid claim. The phone records were far more damning then any of the other evidence. It appears that if those records could have proven that TH left the Avery property and proves he wasn't the last person to see her alive, then they key, bones, and blood, would almost be irrelevant at that point. I say almost, because the burden on the State would have taken on a whole different angle.
[–]dorothydunnit
Yes, but if Kratz fabricated or erred on those records, its a sad indictment of the system when the Defense get blamed for not catching the Prosecutor in a blatant lie or gross incompetence.
Basically, it would be like saying that the Prosecutor can lie and fabricate all he wants, or show gross incompetence resulting in the misrepresentation of facts, and its up to the Defence to catch him.
Especially since the judge can rule, for example, that the Defence does not have a basic right to watch things like the blood testing.
[–]res_ispa_loquitur
I agree that no one should be able to misrepresent evidence, but I don't see how anyone could've taken this evidence at face value. We didn't.
permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply
[–]dorothydunnit
Of course we didn't take it at face value. That's because we saw the whole documentary before seeing this evidence.
I can see how the Defense would have taken it at face value. The Defense should be able to go in with a reasonable expectation of honesty and diligence on the part of the Prosecution, because they don't have the resources, and shouldn't need all the resources, to go over each and every little thing. They should be able to assume a minimal level of honesty and competence from the Prosecutions office. If citizens and attorneys can't expect that, then you might as well throw the whole court system away and go back to throwing people in the water to see if they sink.
Even if Buting and Strang did suspect something was up, they had to be careful with the resources they had because of all the money they were spending on everything else.
I think it sets a very dangerous precedent to say the Defense was responsible for not checking the phone records. Its saying that all a Prosecution has to do is lie, cheat, and make mistakes. Because no Defense has all that money to check every little thing they do.
CONTINUED...
[–]res_ispa_loquitur
ReplyDeleteI understand your point, but I guess I'm looking at it from more of a legal opinion rather than an ethical one. All business records should be certified. Period. The defense bears no cost...they didn't have to independently test the records. It was the state's burden to prove that the records presented were an accurate representation. To do that, they would've started by actually serving their warrant on Cingular. Except for one problem...the warrant was not legally sufficient and I'm guessing LE had no way of correcting that little problem. Cingular was a lot more thorough than Judge Fox, apparently. So they worked around the problem instead. I'm not blaming defense. Ineffective assistance has nothing to do with blame.
[–]dorothydunnit
Okay. Part of me can see the logic. And thanks for your clarification regarding the certification. That makes sense.
It would be really interesting to know what DS and JB were thinking when they allowed that into evidence. Part of me is wondering if they thought it wouldn't make a difference because the prosecution could just say that SA drove around with her phone to make it look like she had left the property?
But if its used as evidence of ineffective counsel, then we'll never find out what they were thinking, because they won't comment on it publicly.
It just seems to me that the whole system is severely lacking in any control over LE, the prosecution and the judge. The incentive seems to got to whoever gets the most people in jail, regardless of the tactics used, or whether or not the jailed people are guilty.
So, that overall picture was what I was reacting to. Sure, I can see they should have caught it, but it seems that the person who snuck in the misrepresentation should pay the bigger price. ie. heads should roll on.
Last question, why couldn't they serve a warrant on Cingular?
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/4hecat/only_conclusion_i_have_about_the_phone_records_is/
The 2:27 PM Call
ReplyDelete[–]foghaze 3 points 3 days ago
My understanding is discovery is that if a warrant/subpoena is issued the entity has to provide the records requested.
From my understanding warrants issued on cell phone activity must be filled out correctly with the exact information they need. For example if they do not request information on the incoming numbers those numbers will not be in the report. If they do not request cell tower info that will be missing too. With that being said it appears 5 efforts were made to subpoena the cell phone activity but they were all rejected due to some error on the sheet they had to fill out.
It also appears the one report we do have in Evidence from Cingular LE did not ask for incoming calls to be shown. If they don't ask it won't be there. I believe it was intentional. So it seems to me they just deliberately left it out and the defense did not question it. I suspect never in a million years would they think LE would deliberately withhold information on the most vital call Teresa received that day. This is without a doubt the most disturbing aspect of this investigation and I never would have expected corruption to this degree. I am convinced without any doubt there was corruption beyond any level imagined.
[–]foghaze 3 points 3 days ago
That is bizarre. How can cingulair deny that?
If it is not filled out correctly apparently they can. OR they are just lying. Which at this point does not surprise me.
[–]Shamrockholmes9 2 points 2 days ago
Perhaps LE intentionally filled them out incorrectly knowing they would be denied so they would only have the partial records at trial.
[–]2much2know 6 points 3 days ago*
The problem with this call is it could have easily been determined if it was to or from AT. Either the State or especially the defense should have acquired Auto Traders phone records for the 31st. If the State wanted to prove 100% this call between Dawn and Teresa happened at 2:27 they produce AT's records. If the Defense wants to prove this call wasn't from AT then they produce it. It's obviously very important to find out because Dawn stated that TH told her when they were talking it was the "Avery brothers" and she was going there now. This is an extremely powerful statement in front of a jury. However according to Dawn's first statements made to investigators,
DAWN further stated she had called TERESA in the aftemoon. she believes, but she is not sure if she actually talked to TERESA or if she left her a message on her voice mail.
Think about that, Dawn goes from possibly talking to TH in the afternoon in her statement to she did talk to TH in the afternoon at trial. If Dawn testified to all of this and the defense showed the 2:27 call was not from AT it not only destroys Dawn's testimony but it would even back up the defense claim that the police/prosecution are indeed framing Avery. It would also show a couple other possibilities.
[–]stOneskull 3 points 3 days ago
Law enforcement mad a bad mistake [the got the number for AutoTrader wrong]. They should've double checked [the number they listed on their reports for AutoTrader]. If it was down as being Autotrader at the start, you could see why it wasn't questioned again. They thought that was solved.
[–]gorrillapoop3 5 points 3 days ago
I just... cant... Aggh! There is no good reason for complete call records not to be available for the trial and entered into evidence. There is no way that Kratz' version of the call records was used, instead, so as not to "confuse" the jury.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/4hmiyz/the_227_call_on_1031/
Bobbie Dohrwardt
ReplyDeleteTeam Leader, Technical Support Department, Cellcom
Gave testimony regarding cellphone records
Direct Examination [KK] - He's deviously slick at controlling the testimony.
Page 172
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Jury-Trial-Transcript-Day-12-2007Feb27.pdf#page=151
16 Q. (By Attorney Kratz)~ Ms Dohrwardt, I have now
17 handed you what has been marked for
18 identification purposes as Exhibit No. 361 have
19 you seen that document before?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. In providing the information for Exhibit No. 360,
22 the summary exhibit, which as Mr. Buting
23 correctly indicates, is an exhibit created as a
24 summary of voluminous information, did you look
25 at Exhibit 361 and assist in the interpretation
173
1 of those records, together with your records, of
2 Exhibit 359?
3 THE COURT: Just a second, before we go
4 further, I think we should identify what Exhibit
361
5 is.
6 ATTORNEY KRATZ: I would be happy to do
7 that, Judge.
8 Q. (By Attorney Kratz)~ What is Exhibit No. 361?
9 A. Exhibit 361 is a type of call record activity
10 from Cingular.
11 Q. And do you know what Cingular is?
12 A. They are another cellphone provider.
13 Q. And do you know -- do you know if the Cingular
14 wireless records that are contained in
15 Exhibit 361 tell the other side of the story, for
16 lack of a better term, for what the caller
17 records from 359 tell?
18 ATTORNEY BUTING: Objection, she's still
19 not been qualified to be able to interpret these
20 records.
21 THE COURT: I assume that she's in the
22 process of being qualified. You may be right, maybe
23 she won't be qualified, but I think this is a
24 foundational question, as I understand it.
25 A. These records have a lot of the same information
174
1 that ours -- that Cellcom records have, but a lot
2 that we don't. They are missing a lot that our
3 records have.
4 So you can't see, on the calls at these
5 particular times, who actually the calling number
6 was on those; where ours show inbound and
7 outbound. But these do show communication
8 between the phone and the network; durations;
9 outbound numbers, if they were dialed. And
10 that's it. That's all that's on these records.
11 Q. Exhibit 361 also shows something called a tower
12 site, or a tower designation; is that correct?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. Now, let's go back to the qualification, your
15 qualifications; as technical research team
16 leader, as in fact the manager of tech support
17 for Cellcom, are you familiar with interpreting
18 that kind of data and that kind of information?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. In fact, you do that every day?
21 A. Correct
[–]OzTm 6 points 1 day ago
ReplyDeleteThank you for finding this /u/loveofnature. I agree with you that there are quite a few strange things (IMHO) about this exhibit.
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Trial-Exhibit-21-Lead-Form-2005Oct29.pdf
Firstly, I'm NOT a handwriting expert, but the writing style feels 'hurried' for the directions - as if she were writing while driving or pulled over at the side of the road (ie while on the way to the appointment). The style for the writing at the top right feels more relaxed - more deliberate - like it was done in an office or sitting down somewhere (and not hurried). I would suggest that they were written at different times.
Secondly, I'm lazy, so if I was cancelling an appointment, I'd probably just cross it out rather than writing 'Cancel' next to it. Again, the writing style doesn't appear to me to be hurried.
Lastly, and most peculiar, is the revised appointment. If I was writing a note to myself about this, I wouldn't write "reschedule for Mon" - I'd probably write something shorter like just 'Mon'.
Going back a step further - how did she know she needed to reschedule? To write 'reschedule for Mon' means that either:
She knew she couldn't make it on Friday - so she calls the customer to make a new appointment for Monday; or
The customer has cancelled - yet still wants to do the shoot - so he called Teresa to tell her that he needs to reschedule.
In both of these cases, there is something obviously missing from the sheet - the appointment time for Monday.
I think there is something fishy with this document. Allow me to put on my tin foil hat on for a second. If this sheet was doctored by someone other than Teresa, then:
the writing style would be different between the directions and the word 'cancel' and 'reschedule for mon'
there would not be a time listed on the 'reschedule for mon' appointment (because it never happened)
the directions are written down because she was on her way there and wrote while en-route (because she made the appointment)
Perhaps I'm missing something here....
CONTINUED...
[–]MMonroe54 3 points 1 day ago
ReplyDeleteBut wait.....is this her writing? Because why would she write her own name at the top: "Teresa 10/29"? Did Dawn write this before she faxed it to her? Then Teresa added the directions? The writing looks similar but could be by different people.
[–]OzTm 4 points 1 day ago*
Well I can't be sure! What you say makes a great deal of sense - it does, however, bring up another set of questions!
Note that there are two fax headers - one from Auto Trader, and above this is the header from Teresa back to Autotrader.
So if Dawn wrote the 'cancel' and 'reschedule' messages, then why would Teresa need to send the fax BACK to AT? To prove that she was told not to do any work on the day?
If AT faxed Teresa a sheet with 'cancelled' and 'rescheduled' - why would Teresa then go and research the directions? MAYBE she would research directions for the postponed photo shoot - but surely not for the cancelled one!
Maybe AT wrote the directions out for Teresa - but again, why would they do the research for a cancelled appointment?
This brings me back to thinking that the writing was on Teresa's copy of the original fax.... and again... perhaps I'm missing something!
[–]MMonroe54 [score hidden] 21 hours ago
I think the only thing that makes sense is that Dawn wrote "Teresa 10/29" and Teresa wrote the rest of it. She could have been the one to cancel, or could have gotten the message that it was cancelled. And she would almost certainly be who wrote the directions. Not sure why she faxed it back...unless it was proof to AT that this appointment had been cancelled/rescheduled.
[–]JLWhitaker 3 points 1 day ago
My guess is that the notes on the sheet are for telling Dawn et al what to do with each of the appointments and what to pay her for. There might be examples where she wrote: 'not home', 'refused to pay' or something else that would be needed for the office to follow up about.
Keep in mind these sheets were how she documented her job not just for herself.
[–]loveofnature[S] [score hidden] 19 hours ago
Thank you. :)
The customer has cancelled - yet still wants to do the shoot - so he called Teresa to tell her that he needs to reschedule.
From my understanding, this one was not rescheduled until after she called him on the 31st. In the CASO he states she was suppose to show up on the November 3.
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CASO-Investigative-Report.pdf#page=22
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/4k5o9u/discussion_something_i_found_interesting_on_one/
[–]freerudyguede May 5, 2016
ReplyDeleteOK, I'll throw this out as speculation. Probably not as big as you would like - but not totally insignificant. Bear in mind when reading these quotes Wiegert tends to tamper with his reports.
When Dawn was first contact she said this:
DAWN further stated she had called TERESA in the afternoon. she believes. but she is not sure if she actually talked to TERESA or if she left her a message on her voice mail
Let's say she left the 02:41 voicemail.
So who might the 02:27 call for about 5 minutes be? Perhaps Daniel Morrow returning her 11:31 call arranging a time to photo the car that afternoon.
She doesn't turn up. He rings Auto-Trader to find out why, they decide - or someone advises them to - to sit on it. It is too early to raise the missing person alarm yet. The RAV4 isn'tin the salvage yard yet.
Either Daniel Morrow is persuaded to give a very vague account or Wiegert records him giving a very vague account.
I did make phone contact with DANIEL at approximately 2230 hours. DANIEL stated he did receive a phone call from TERESA HALBACH. DANIEL states she indicated she would be coming to take a picture of his vehicle for AUTO TRADER magazine. DANIEL stated she was supposed to come on today's date, 11/03/05. He states he was not home and does not know if she would have shown up to take that picture or not. DANIEL could not provide me with any other pertinent information reference TERESA' s whereabouts.
[–]freerudyguede 1 point 8 hours ago
She called him it at 11:30.
I am suggesting that 02:27 is his call back and that Wiegert's record of Morrow's interview is not a reliable source. After all foghaze's premise is based on tampering with records in any case.
Of course if Wiegert's report of Morrow's interview is reliable then there is no issue. She called on the 31st to arrange to photograph his car on the 3rd and he didn't bother to waiting around to see if she showed or not. Certainly could have happened like that.
But if you are looking for anomalies there are a few potential red flags that might be worth checking out.
[–]JLWhitaker 2 points 8 hours ago
Daniel is saying she called him. The 2.27 call was incoming to her phone.
[–]foghaze[S] 1 point 4 hours ago
I'm wondering what it is they would be needing to conceal about this call if it were Morrow?
BECAUSE MORROW/COAKLEY WOULD HAVE BEEN HER LAST APPT IF SHE HEADED TO GREEN BAY AFTER ZIPPERER/AVERY.
[–]freerudyguede 1 point 4 hours ago
Speculation: Morrow called asking why she didn't make her appointment and for reasons as yet unrevealed they did not raise a missing person alert. It might have been an issue better managed in a different way, of course. By hindsight is always 20/20 vision
[–]foghaze[S] 2 points 3 hours ago*
You said,
"I am suggesting that 02:27 is his call back and that Wiegert's record of Morrow's interview is not a reliable source. After all foghaze's premise is based on tampering with records in any case.
And my question is if that is the case why would the state need to deliberately make up this whole story about the call being autotrader when it was just a harmless call from Morrow? If it was JUST Morrow from the beginning why the whole Dawn from Autotrader narrative when they could have just easily said it was Morrow calling? You have not provided me with a reason as to why LE would deliberately create a narrative about Autotrader being the source of the call if Morrow simply called to reschedule or whatever. It seems pointless.. In fact it wouldn't be a lie and no need for Dawn to contrive some story about what was said within this call.
BECAUSE THEY NEED AVERY TO BE TERESA'S LAST STOP; IF SHE MADE IT TO ZIPPERER'S AND THEN GREEN BAY, AVERY COULD NOT BE THE KILLER.
CONTINUED...
[–]freerudyguede
ReplyDeleteAnd my question is if that is the case why would the state need to deliberately make up this whole story about the call being autotrader when it was just a harmless call from Morrow?
It is an insane case where we are trying to reconstruct phone calls without any validated documentation from Cingular listing them. If you think 02:27 is not Auto-trader you need to accept that very early on in the CASO file the 02:27 is specifically described as being from Auto Trader.
HOW DID WIEGERT DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF AN INCOMING CALL WHEN INCOMING CALLS ARE NOT ON CINGULAR'S REPORT/PRE-BILL? HE NEEDED THE 2:27 CALL TO BE FROM AUTOTRADER SO IN HIS REPORT HE LISTED THE CALLER AS AUTOTRADER BUT HE PUT IN THE WRONG NUMBER - page 15.
"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 414-XXX-8712, the AUTO TRADER magazine. ANGELA stated it was possibly a voice mail message that was left for TERESA but she is not sure."
WIEGERT IS LYING. THE LAST CALL WAS NOT 2:27; THERE WAS A 2:41 HIDDEN CALL AND ALSO AVERY'S LAST TWO CALLS. "IT" INDICATES IT WAS AN INCOMING CALL. WHAT IS "IT"? THIS IS BOGUS BECAUSE THERE ARE NO NUMBERS LISTED BY CINGULAR FOR INCOMING CALLS. DID THEY GET ADDITIONAL RECORDS, PERHAPS FROM CELL TOWERS, BUT DIDN'T ADMIT THIS INTO EVIDENCE? DID THEY TURN TOWER RECORDS OVER TO THE DEFENSE DURING DISCOVERY? - page 7.
"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 414-XXX-8712. In doing a reverse directory on that phone number, it came back to AUTO TRADER magazine."
Now 414-XXX-8712 is close, although not identical to the numbers on the Auto Trader documentation we have. Not inconsistent with it being a phone for calls out, while keep a line open for customers to call in.
The listed numbers are 414-XXX-8675 and toll-free 414-XXX-7653 and fax 414-XXX-8743. So if you don't think it was Auto-Trader, then it was fortuitously in a similar block to Auto-Trader. So for it to be a stalker or hit man, you would have to assume they were tampering with the entire record to eliminate his presence. Equally it certainly isn't Daniel Morrow either.
Still, if I was the defence I find Daniel Morrow's account just interesting enough to want to check out anyway. And this is the only way speculation can be converted to anything more solid. By looking for avenues for further investigation.
[–]freerudyguede
Well if we assume Morrow is lying then I do not know.
Why assume he is lying? Unless you think Wiegert will splice out parts of audio but record everything in his reports with 100% accuracy
And no, I don't think it was Morrow. As I said elsewhere in this thread, it is possible that Morrow rang Auto Trader that she did not make her appointment and an alarm was not raised.
A possibility that can easily be eliminated by contacting Morrow. Like everything else, it is only speculation - which is all you can do with a tampered record. Identify the possible gaps and think of possible reasons motivating them
[–]freerudyguede 3 points 8 hours ago
I guess it is testable - interview Daniel Morrow and/or see if you can get a bona-fide Cingular record that includes numbers dialed.
Who would be hiding it? Wiegert obviously, one or two people at Auto Trader, Daniel Morrow, but he might not think it was a big deal. You would have a couple of people who only had a small part of the picture and so didn't understand the significance of what they were doing.
Possibly it might not seem that sinister, but if you start pulling at loose ends, something might unravel. People making decisions on the spur of the moment don't always make the most rational of choices, but the first cover-up compels the second cover-up and so on
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/4hyh6r/i_have_confirmation_the_wiegert_remiker_phone/
Cingular had a 24/7 compliance center in 2005 to handle legal requests to track where phones had been and where they were last seen. (self.TickTockManitowoc)
ReplyDeletesubmitted 11 hours ago * by Nexious
I posted this as part of a conversation in SAIG, but felt it may warrant additional discussions here. In 2005, Cingular (Teresa's cellphone provider) came under hot water in the case of a missing teenager after they initially refused to trace the kid's phone at a detective's request as they didn't understand the legal nature of the request.
Here is an NPR story from August 2005, a couple of months before Halbach's murder.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4814334
Excerpts:
It may not be common knowledge, but wireless carriers can track where a phone has been, and if it is left on, companies can determine where the device and the person carrying it are located right now.
...
Siegel says Cingular employees know that tracking and location technology is available, and life-and-death situations are responded to immediately.
Mr. MARK SIEGEL (Spokesman, Cingular Wireless): Just to give it a sense of scale for you, we have a compliance center that does nothing but handle requests from law enforcement officials, government officials. It operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It handles in the high tens of thousands of requests a year.
Note that in the above case the first request to Cingular wasn't until over 36 hours after the search had began, and it took another day for Cingular to agree to trace the phone--the general location of the person was determined within 15 minutes after Cingular granted the request. The person was found to had veered off a steep road and died on impact.
Recall the tweet from KZ: "Cellphone tower records of SA & TH provide airtight alibi for him. She left property he didn't." Further, Zellner told Newseek: "So 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."
If the possibility exists that Cingular records on tower pings/hits from 2005 included the phone's last known location before it went offline and more importantly where it had been in the minutes beforehand, it leads to the real possibility that the phone can be shown to have left the Avery compound.
The phone data presented in court during the Avery/Dassey trials amounted to just a tiny micro-fraction of the total available phone records and was both incomplete and erroneous especially with respect to Kratz's summary documents. We know from Kratz's emails on discovery to the defense, which Zellner also would have access to, that there was a total of 498 pages of Teresa's phone records and photo schedule from auto trader. Of all of that, only a single page or two was presented in court. If all of this is correct and the complete phone records do tell a different tale, it is understandable why Zellner and Avery have shown quite a distaste for Avery's original attorneys.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/4rhd2e/cingular_had_a_247_compliance_center_in_2005_to/
Based on TH's cell phone activity (per her Cingular bill), her home tower was 2111. We don't know the location of that tower, but KZ does, so she knows where Teresa was on the morning of October 31st. And she knows the route she took when she left home. She tweeted that she spent all day retracing TH's route, so she must be using data dumped from cell towers.
ReplyDelete“All day re-tracing TH steps.No doubt she left Avery property alive. All roads lead to one door & it's not Steven Avery’s.”
Cell-tower dumps identify every mobile phone at a particular location and time.
A myriad of factors determine how many people are caught in the web of one of these so-called “cell-tower dumps” or “searches,” including the time, location and a mobile-phone tower’s capacity. The data from a dump can provide a wealth of information regarding whoever is carrying a mobile phone in a tower’s area — from the phone number to various device information pointed to a phone’s account.
Although we do not specifically track the details of each tower request, our experience is that we typically receive requests for less than 30 minutes (e.g., where law enforcement is already able to pinpoint the time of a crime). But we also receive requests covering more than an hour (e.g., where there has been a crime spree). When we receive a demand for a longer period, cognizant that the cell tower dump will contain many mobile device numbers, we will often ask law enforcement to narrow the scope of the time period or accept reports run for shorter, incremental periods, even if the longer time period was approved by a judge. The number of mobile device numbers per cell tower dump depends on many factors including the location of the tower and the time day. A major event (like the Boston Marathon) may lead to a substantial increase in the number of mobile device numbers communicating with a tower at a given time.
https://www.wired.com/2013/12/massive-domestic-monitorning/
Zellner told Newsweek in late March/early April 2016:
ReplyDelete“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.”
Zellner has cell tower historical data as part of discovery materials. She tweeted on April 9, 2016:
“Cellphone tower records of SA & TH provide airtight alibi for him. She left property he didn’t.”
Buting told Newsweek on October 24, 2016:
"We looked at a lot of stuff, we looked at cellphone tower information… it’s somewhat more advanced than it was then too. What you can do with that information has changed over the last ten years."
Next time someone says KZ is full of it based on tower pings... (self.TickTockManitowoc)
ReplyDeletesubmitted 25 days ago * by Rookie1082
Just tell them, why are you focused on imprecise tower pings when discovery (should have) included Teresa's GPS Coordinates?
Quick refresher
You will have some pundits say that Hey idiot, the Moto Razr V3 didn't have GPS built in so the GPS coordinates that JD requested are worthless.
Then you can say, well i'm more worried about the Enhanced 911 Phase 2 that was in play on all networks. Some carriers even had E911 compliant phones. Unfortunately, Cingular didn't see the need for the phones to be E911 compliant.
Why you ask?
Because Cingular Had e911 compliancy on their towers, not their handsets
So you see, GPS coordinates were indeed available but most likely not followed up on once the RAV was found.
[–]What_a_Jem 4 points 24 days ago
My knowledge of towers and pings is close to zero unfortunately. The more I have read, the more contradictory it all seemed to be.
It does seem strange though, that none of it was used in court, either by the prosecution of defense. I think the defense ignored it, simply because they were using the timeline provided by the bus driver, which to me has always seemed incredibility stupid, as the bus driver didn't see Teresa on that fateful Monday. Maybe the prosecution also didn't use it, simply because it contradicted their narrative, by showing Teresa did leave the salvage yard.
All very confusing, so will can't can't wait to see what Zellner may have learnt.
[–]tangent685 4 points 24 days ago
I first watched the documentary about a year ago. Then, after watching it the third or fourth time I began googling parts of the case. Most of the answers brought me to the MaM sub at the time. Then, things started to go wonky there. There was a clear attack of a lot of noise and guilter trolling that I did not find helpful. I discovered the TTM sub shortly after that and have been reading it since. I think I started off as about a 50-50 fence sitter to now being about 90% sure of Avery's innocence. I seem to recall that the bus driver recanted her testimony and it was shown that she could not even see that far up the driveway from the street. I still believe the Avery's first and Zipperer's next theory. Since the dogs tracked a straight trail from the hunt camp trailer out to Kuss road, I do believe that is where her car was found by AC.
I think the prosecution were definitely going for the Zipperer's first and Avery's last timeline. JB and Strang were willing to accept the bus driver's testimony because it threw a wrench into the prosecution's timeline. It was, after all, up to the prosecution to establish a timeline and for the defense to refute it any way they could.
I also think that Zellner is ready to present her case and is now not talking because of that. Additionally, there may be some "talkers" which would present the face saving option of the state prosecuting the real guilty parties to save face and show that they were 'actually' doing the right thing.
CONTINUED...
[–]tangent685 31 points 25 days ago
ReplyDeleteI have long thought that the triangulation data (not just ping data) exists, and that it would definitively play a large role in the outcome of the case. I worked for a cellular provider in the late 90's and early 00's when these networks were first being built. There was no problem, even then, using triangulation on TDMA systems to locate handsets within 40 to 50 feet of accuracy. It is also possible that LE used that (even partial) data to find TH's Rav in the first place.
Given that KZ went to the lengths of purchasing a Rav it is well within the realm of possibility that her team spent a few days in the area with older handsets conducting triangulation experiments with the co-operation of a cellular carrier.
There are a few caveats they would have to clear up with this theory, however. Drop-outs due to topography and/or whether a handset would have been roaming on another carrier (but could still be triangulated) are testable and explainable complications.
While I believe that given her tweets, KZ will be able to demonstrate evidence planting, I really think that the cell data will knock it out of the park. No pun intended, but I believe she is maintaining "radio silence" right now because legal action is pending shortly.
I was a construction manager. But the work I did entailed removing older equipment and updating to newer. I spent a lot of times back in those days talking to ops tech (operations technicians that ran the sites). It was different at the time, but I can still recall some of the technology. There was another fellow on TTM that appeared to be an ops tech and was able to offer some fairly expert opinions of the sites in the area at that time. I recall two fairly large discussion threads regarding the Whitelaw cell tower. I would have chimed in then but a few people in the threads really knew what they were talking about. Some statements at the time sort of gnawed at me since then. TDMA Base stations were always triangulating you when you make or take a call to determine which tower to use and do so again when you move from tower to tower, when the handset is in use. The method used was TDOA. These were Motorola handsets at the time.
I was a construction manager. But the work I did entailed removing older equipment and updating to newer. I spent a lot of times back in those days talking to ops tech (operations technicians that ran the sites). It was different at the time, but I can still recall some of the technology. There was another fellow on TTM that appeared to be an ops tech and was able to offer some fairly expert opinions of the sites in the area at that time. I recall two fairly large discussion threads regarding the Whitelaw cell tower. I would have chimed in then but a few people in the threads really knew what they were talking about. Some statements at the time sort of gnawed at me since then. TDMA Base stations were always triangulating you when you make or take a call to determine which tower to use and do so again when you move from tower to tower, when the handset is in use. The method used was TDOA. These were Motorola handsets at the time.
[–]tangent685 2 points 24 days ago*
If LE placed a warrant on the triangulation data from her last call, and she didn't travel far after that call, they would have had her last location, and possibly the site of the parked Rav. This is speculation, but is not wildly impossible. Edit to add that even if she was pinging off of only one tower, based on signal strength, a radius could be drawn out from the tower, or possibly that sector, if the tower was a sector site. I believe there were previous posts on TTM that discussed the radius area before but were unable to conclusively prove her location from that alone.
CONTINUED...
[–]tangent685 2 points 24 days ago
ReplyDeleteTriangulation is reliable if there is a line of sight between two towers and the phone is on an active call. Modern day handsets with GPS can find your phone regardless of whether it is in use or not. There was a search up here a few years back and the person(s) were not found for a couple of reasons. They were not using their phone to make calls (thus not registering a location) and they were in the wilderness (likely only in range of one or no towers).
[–]tmikebond 9 points 25 days ago
Shows everything wrong with forensics. State only considers forensics that back their case as reliable and excuse away anything that doesn't. Until the State is forced to fully honor Brady and officials that fail to do so are jailed, it will not get better. The State cheats and they believe that is acceptable to get their man. I think regardless of severity of information withheld, any time it happens defendant should have charges dropped with prejudice. Maybe then they will respect the law.
[–]What_a_Jem 2 points 24 days ago
I think the club likes the status quo to be honest. Is what they never seem to get, is that sending an innocent person to prison is only half the story. The person who did actually commit the crime, is then left to reoffend, causing untold misery upon the new victim's and their family. For some inexplicable reason, it doesn't seem to bother them!
Maybe if enough members of law enforcement, prosecutors or judges, were victims themselves of someone who should have been prosecuted, but was overlooked by an overzealousness investigation, dishonest prosecution and complicit judge, then something might happen.
[–]subzero0000 2 points 24 days ago
I really am hoping that KZ has managed to get her hands on highly detailed cell tower data for TH's phone. If TH's position can be triangulated accurately based on collected angular incidence and time of flight data (and she is away from Avery's), then this really blows the case wide open. KZ seems to be highly confident that she has done that, and I would imagine that she would be basing that interpretation on the analysis of cellular network engineers.
CONTINUED...
[–]Rookie1082[S] 3 points 24 days ago
ReplyDeleteThis has always been my thought process about what was handed over in discovery regarding TH's cell phone records...
Obviously what we saw at trial
As JD calls them, GPS coordinates via subpoena
These GPS coordinates could have either been already deciphered into latitude and longitude by the provider before being sent over to JD, or it would be a document that shows the towers that she was connected to at a given time and the signal strength from said connected towers. Given the data on that sheet, KZ's team would be able to decipher signal strength and get a good approximation of where TH's handset was at that time.
Document that JB wanted to introduce but was denied by Willis regarding VM being picked up the morning of 11/2
[–]Rookie1082[S] 14 points 25 days ago
Cingular network constantly communicated with handsets via layer 3 communication that in turn used response time between at least two towers and the handset to determine approximate location within 300 meters.
[–]subzero0000 5 points 25 days ago
It's not whether it can, or can't be done, but whether or not her cellular company stored information specific enough to be able to triangulate her. Information such as angular incidence, time of flight, etc, are all important in accurately triangulating her position. Whether that information was stored during tower hopping as opposed to important calls such as 911, is the important question. If a person is lost, that would most likely require an active cell phone, as opposed to the use of historical data. The CSLI (Cell Site Location Information) program was a government enforced data gathering initiative, which stored tower pings, time of flight, and various other data, which KZ may have been able to get access to.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/68wc1z/next_time_someone_says_kz_is_full_of_it_based_on/
[–]AlwaysLurking88 6 points 10 months ago*
ReplyDeleteIt's not just the 1:52 call he skips over. Every call he lists is an OUTGOING call EXCEPT the 2:27pm call.
We know from Cingulars testimony that customers are not able to see who the incoming calls are coming from. I'm not sure if the online bill would show any of the times of the incoming calls, because Weigert leaves out ALL INCOMING calls between 11:43am - 2:27pm, including: the 12:29pm call, 12:45pm call, 1:52pm call, and 2:24pm call (Avery *67).
If he could see the times of INCOMING calls (not the cell #'s), why only list the 2:27pm call?
It's not going to show just one incoming call, with the exact phone number IF no other incoming calls are listed on TH's online account.
According to dedering's report, he lists 2 of 5 incoming calls. He leaves OUT the 12:29pm, 1:52pm, and 2:24pm calls. They seem to be leaving out calls that would point to anyone but SA. They did list that 2:24 call later once they found out is was SA from a blocked cell.
Either way, there is no instance in where Weigert/Dedering could have SEEN a number displayed for the 2:27 call. It just doesn't fit with their reports or Cingular's testimony.
So they both left out the same calls: 12:29pm, 1:52pm, and 2:24pm (until they figure out that was SA).
The 12:44pm and 2:27pm calls still should NOT have an incoming phone number next to them, according to Cingular.
This means they would have had to have her phone, they made up the phone numbers, or those calls were important to help with framing. The 12:44pm may mean nothing, just to show she had more than just ONE incoming call during that time frame.
The calls that I'm suspicious about are the ones that were completely left out: 12:29pm and 1:52pm, as well as the 2:27pm call that we "know" isn't really AT.
[–]DominantChord 3 points 10 months ago
I am beginning to believe that Wiegert's report on this is deliberately misleading with the claim of knowing incomings (add to this that he "slips" and writes that the Janda number lists back to a SA).
The central piece of evidence on which many trial testimonies and narratives are based, is simply missing: The "report from Ryan". This must be an instance of procedural misconduct.
[–]pattyo975 2 points 10 months ago
Corporal Lemieux said it appeared from the minutes used that she had called her appts for that day. She also says the last call activity was at 2 27, which begs the question--Why did Ryan & Co "decide" this was her last call? Minutes used on her plan would include all activity up to Nov 3rd. Kratz actually says in court that "they got her cell phone bill in the mail on the 3rd." There's deception going on....
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/4v12f8/is_this_why_kratz_came_unglued_when_buting_tried/
[–]garythegoatfucker 5 points 10 months ago
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts on the non_mail_user@glr.smbs.sbc.com@COMPLEX entries...
I believe in this context, non_mail_user refers to non-voicemail system user, or someone who simply called her phone number and left a message. Most VM systems also let users send a sort of user-to-user voicemail that gets deposited in the mailbox without actually causing the phone to ring. I've used it when I want to leave a VM without having to talk to the person.
My guess is that the odd message was sent in this way - from someone who was logged in to the mailbox system.
[–]JLWhitaker 3 points 10 months ago
could you explain this a bit more with an example? Who could log into the "mailbox" system?
And why is it registered as an email? I found that very odd.
I did a straight entry of www.sbc.com and it redirects to ATT today. I'm going to guess that smbs is 'small business'. Nothing came up on a search for glr.smbs.sbc.com or smbs.sbc.com .
The 1.54 message is the only one without that designation. It is a "known" connection, nothing to do with CLI. CLI is common for other left messages. And the CLI is presented for this call - Twice.
Thoughts?
[–]garythegoatfucker 3 points 10 months ago*
I'm definitely not an expert on this, so take it as you will, but I don't think it's an email address (even though it resembles one). I believe it's more of an identifier that's attached to the messages on the storage disk. See the filepath for each message (/voice1/vm88/z36 etc...)? That's pointing to the sound file on the server.
Anyway, you can try out the direct message feature yourself if you have a voicemail account. Dial into your voicemail and listen for an option to "send a message" or something similar. The system will prompt you to record your message then ask for the mailbox you'd like to send it to. If you enter in a phone number that's in the same network, it'll send to the other person without ever ringing their phone.
[–]JLWhitaker 1 point 10 months ago
Hmmmm.....thinking about the smb designation. I wonder if her account was 'special' for small business, hence that designation.
So are you saying the owner of that number sent a direct message into her VM account? That could explain the time discrepancy.
[–][deleted] 3 points 10 months ago
Yes, I have been sure for awhile now that the voicemail report has been altered. The data fields are unlike the others except for the first one on the first page and I suspect that they altered the one on 11/16 so that going beyond the margin in the 1:52 wouldn't seem so out of the ordinary. The data fields aren't following logically from a data dump on those two.
[–]pattyo975 1 point 10 months ago
Notice the sequential #s 1-9 are on the left side of the column, not the right as seen in Kratzs'. Which means 1. was at one point was a 10 or another double digit #. That jumped out at me the second i saw the "complete" phone records. I have a cingular bill from early 07 and it shows the single digits on the left. I believe all bills are this way, because it's the correct way.
http://www.apfn.org/images/images3/191204-0905_dc_phone_records-19%20December-2004-September2005.gif
[–]pattyo975 1 point 10 months ago
Kratz actually says in his opening statement--"You'll hear about how phone calls can't be changed in the records" page 97 Day 1
[–][deleted] 1 point 10 months ago
Neither mentions the 2:24 call that was supposedly private call from SA but they Investigator MW Caso and Officer DR MTSO, Are caught mentioning this call in their Nov 5 2005 morning call. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnE8ZFE8ww8
AT blocked off 9-2 for Teresa's "appointments" (trial exhibit 22), which must have been the time frame AT told leads that photographers would come to their property to photograph their vehicles (TH also blocked off 9-2 on her day planner for Mondays and Thursdays, PC-exhibit 45).
ReplyDeleteAT faxed TH a detailed report for each lead (trial exhibit 22), in addition to the one-page appointment sheet. This detailed report listed the year, make and model of vehicle to be photographed, in addition to the type of ad, contact information for the lead, an area for TH to record form of payment, and and area for TH to write down the VIN.
AT office manager Angela S told DCI agent McGrath that it was common for leads not to be present when photographers showed up to take pictures, and that these leads would leave the ad description and payment with the vehicle.
If the AT&T report is accurate, this would explain why TH did not initiate phone contact with many of her telemarketing leads (compare appointment sheets in trial exhibits with her AT&T cell phone records, PC exhibit 72) -- she may have just showed up at the addresses listed on the detailed lead sheets for some appointments and took pictures of the vehicles if they were easily identifiable in a driveway or parking lot.
DCI agent McGrath wrote:
Schuster stated that it was common for customers to do repeat business with Auto Trader Magazine. It was also common for the customer not to be present when their vehicle is photographed by Auto Trader Magazine. If the customer is not present, a description of the vehicle form filled out by the customer along with payment would be left with the vehicle. The photographer would collect the documents and payment when photographing the vehicle. A typical payment for a 12 week ad to run in Auto Trader Magazine is approximately $40.00. Clients are allowed to pay with cash, credit card or check and it is policy for the photographer to leave a receipt for the client that states how long their ad will run in Auto Trader Magazine.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/6n69ij/making_sense_of_the_mistaken_steven_that_sbat/dk7htrx/
Compare the Dan M lead from AT to the Steven Sp lead on TH's day planner (PC Exhibit 45), which she printed from her computer at 10:29 p.m. on 10/30.
ReplyDeleteYou can tell by the details for Dan, which TH penciled-in during the time she has blocked off for "Trader" on Thursday that this lead came from AT (exact address, amount pre-paid).
But "Steve from Sheboyban" is a different type of lead, probably a hustle shot, which TH penciled-in below the time she had blocked off for "Trader" on Monday. This indicates she planned to call Steven Sp to schedule a shoot but then her AT leads came in that morning, causing a change in her plans (she was going to Manitowoc County instead of Sheboygan County), so this is why she didn't call Steven Sp to schedule a photo shoot for that day.
The AT office didn't actually schedule specific appointment times between a lead and a photographer -- AT passed the leads onto photographers after telling the leads that a photographer would be there between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. on a specific day to photograph their vehicles (in Teresa's case, Mondays for Calumet, Sheboygan and Manitowoc counties, and Thursdays and Saturdays for the Green Bay area).
Comparing Teresa's lead sheets entered into evidence with the AT&T report of Teresa's cell phone records attached to the post-conviction petition, it appears that for telemarketing leads (source code TMK) Teresa would just show up at the addresses on the lead sheets to take photos and pickup the ad descriptions and payments (if those things had been left with the vehicles).
Apparently, the only time Teresa would call a lead first is if the customer actually called the AutoTrader office to inquire about running an ad (source code PHO) -- when this lead was passed onto Teresa, via a faxed appointment sheet and detailed lead report, she would call the customer to setup a time and place for the shoot.
Why would Teresa tell a hustle shot that she generated to call the office to reschedule? This was TH's lead, not a lead passed to her by AT. She got paid more for this type of lead, a hustle shot, so why would she tell Steven Sp to call the office? All she had to do was tell him that they could schedule the shoot for next Monday. And, by doing this, she would get paid $10 more for the shot because it was a hustle shot that she generated, not a lead passed onto her by AT.
I don't believe Steven Sp talked to TH on 10/31. Someone altered TH's Cingular report. In Wiegert's and Dedering's reports, they list this incoming call from Steven Sp as occurring at 12:44 p.m. on 10/31. On KK's Offer Of Proof, he also lists it as incoming at 12:44. But at trial, on the Cingular report, it is listed as incoming at 12:45. This would be because Steven Sp is on the phone with AT at 12:43 for 1.1 minutes, per the toll free number report (PC Exhibit 74).
Note that there isn't a 12:44 or 12:45 incoming call on TH's new cell phone records, the AT&T report (PC Exhibit 72).
Steven Sp expected to hear from TH on 10/31 but didn't, so he called AT's 800 number at 12:43 to find out why. The call lasted only 1.1 minutes. Rachel at AT assumed he was Steven Avery, per the CASO report, if you can trust what was reported by investigators.
TL;DR: Teresa didn't pursue the Steven Sp hustle shot on 10/31 because, after getting her leads that morning, she was no longer heading in the direction of Sheboygan County. Steve Sp must have expected her to call that morning and got impatient when she didn't, so he called AT to find out why. AT didn't know anything about a Steven Sp because it wasn't their lead, but a lead generated by TH herself. And the CASO report makes it sound like they blew him off and didn't get his contact info and vehicle info because they thought he was Avery.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/6n69ij/making_sense_of_the_mistaken_steven_that_sbat/dk7g8ih/
TH called SSch at 8:48 p.m. on 10/29, according to the AT&T report. The call lasted 41 seconds, so most likely she didn't talk with him but instead left a message. She called again on 10/31 at 12:51 p.m. If the voicemail played at trial actually was the voicemail left on SSch's machine at 12:51 p.m., with TH telling him she couldn't come to take pictures unless he called her back with an address, then TH didn't go to SSch on 10/31. When SSch didn't call her back to give her his address, she decided not to drive to the hustle shot she had in Sheboygan County that day (which is why she didn't call "Steve in Sheboygan") and instead headed out around 1:45 p.m. to Manitowoc County for the Avery and Zipperer appointments. Teresa did not go to Schmitz's on October 31, 2005.
ReplyDeleteWhat The Police Can Get From Mobile Phone Tower Data
ReplyDeleteJul 8, 2014
Metadata is in the news again with revelations that police in Australia have been getting access to data collected from mobile base stations (cell towers). So what can police get from this so-called Tower Dump?
Philip Branch is a Senior Lecturer in Telecommunications at Swinburne University of Technology. This article originally appeared on The Conversation.
In the wiretapping world there is a distinction between call content and call metadata. The call content is the actual recording of the conversation. Metadata is data about the call, such as who has called whom and when.
In the report it says the metadata is about the location of mobile phones and hence the location of the mobile phone owner. According to the report law enforcement agencies are accessing data that tells them who was located within particular cells at particular times.
What’s the cell in cellphone?
Mobile telephony is based on the idea of cells. As we move around we are connected to a nearby base station. The coverage of a base station is called a cell.
The size of a cell depends on many factors but its diameter ranges from a kilometre or less in densely populated areas up to about 30 kilometres in rural areas. Consequently, data on which base station we are connected to can provide information as to our location.
Most people do not appreciate just how “chatty” their mobile phone is. When a mobile phone is switched on, there is a constant dialogue between it and the network, even without a call being made.
In particular there is a constant exchange of data as to which cell the device is currently located in and which base station it should be connected to. If a signal becomes too weak because we have moved out of the cell, or if the current base station we are connected to becomes too congested the phone connection may be handed over to another base station.
All this happens without our intervention and without us making a call.
CONTINUED...
Locating the baddies
ReplyDeleteThe data exchanged as part of this process can be of great use to law enforcement agencies since it can provide information as to the approximate location at certain times of the owner of the mobile phone.
At the very least it can tell an investigator which cell the mobile device (and hence the owner of the device) was located in at a particular time. But if the investigator is prepared to analyse the data, much more accurate location information can be obtained.
To manage handover between cells, the base station monitors the signal strength from the handset. This can give an approximate measure of the distance from the base station.
Also, since most base stations use directional antennae, the base station can give a good estimate as to the location of the mobile device. Multiple base stations may be monitoring the signal strength, making it possible for an investigator to pinpoint the location of the mobile phone to a particular house.
It is worth pointing out this method of estimating location is quite distinct from GPS used for location aware apps in smart phones. Apps in smart phones may include GPS data (such as location services in mapping applications or geotagging in images) but accessing it by law enforcement agencies is not straightforward.
In contrast, determining location using tower data is much simpler since the method relies only on monitoring who is connected to the base station and what their signal strength is.
Should we be worried?
The main concern expressed so far is the indiscriminate nature of data collection. Rather than collecting data for particular individuals, it is claimed that all location data for the base station is collected and the investigators pull information of interest.
If true, there are obvious possibilities for data to be collected and leaked about people who are not suspected of being involved in criminal behaviour.
There is also concern about disposal of collected data.
So unless we are confident that there is some trusted oversight of it, then yes, there is some cause to be worried.
Trusted oversight in the past has been through a magistrate issuing a warrant for an intercept. At the moment police do not need a warrant to access phone tower data. Maybe that should be changed.
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/07/what-the-police-can-get-from-mobile-phone-tower-data/
How SMS Works
ReplyDeleteJust when we're finally used to seeing everybody constantly talking on their cell phones, it suddenly seems like no one is talking at all. Instead, they're typing away on tiny numerical pads, using their cell phones to send quick messages. SMS, or text messaging, has replaced talking on the phone for a new "thumb generation" of texters.
In this article, we'll find out how text messaging works, explore its uses and learn why it sometimes takes a while for your text message to get to its recipient.
SMS stands for short message service. Simply put, it is a method of communication that sends text between cell phones, or from a PC or handheld to a cell phone. The "short" part refers to the maximum size of the text messages: 160 characters (letters, numbers or symbols in the Latin alphabet). For other alphabets, such as Chinese, the maximum SMS size is 70 characters.
But how do SMS messages actually get to your phone? If you have read How Cell Phones Work, you can actually see what is happening.
Even if you are not talking on your cell phone, your phone is constantly sending and receiving information. It is talking to its cell phone tower over a pathway called a control channel. The reason for this chatter is so that the cell phone system knows which cell your phone is in, and so that your phone can change cells as you move around. Every so often, your phone and the tower will exchange a packet of data that lets both of them know that everything is OK.
Your phone also uses the control channel for call setup. When someone tries to call you, the tower sends your phone a message over the control channel that tells your phone to play its ringtone. The tower also gives your phone a pair of voice channel frequencies to use for the call.
The control channel also provides the pathway for SMS messages. When a friend sends you an SMS message, the message flows through the SMSC, then to the tower, and the tower sends the message to your phone as a little packet of data on the control channel. In the same way, when you send a message, your phone sends it to the tower on the control channel and it goes from the tower to the SMSC and from there to its destination.
The actual data format for the message includes things like the length of the message, a time stamp, the destination phone number, the format, etc.
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/e-mail-messaging/sms.htm
A Backwards Thought (self.TickTockManitowoc)
ReplyDeletesubmitted 2 days ago by missingtruth
I sometimes like to take my previous thoughts and turn them backwards to see if they make sense looking at this case from different angles.
By phone record comparison between RH and TH, we know after a lengthy call on 10/25, their phone calls to each other stop. My first way of looking at it was they may have had an argument.
(Speculation) So, after turning it around, I have to wonder if instead of calling, they were actually spending time with each other. Maybe they had made a recent decision to try a relationship one more time but keep it hush hush for now. Maybe this is what SB knows and why he blurted out his name.
Maybe Ryan was already staying at the house a lot so no big deal that he just stayed there during the investigation and afterward. It would actually strengthen the jealousy motive if they were serious again
If RH didn't want that known, he just admitted to seeing her Sunday but only that he was dropping something off for Scott and couldn't recall when. He says something about discussing Halloween party plans and she was going as a cowgirl.
IIRC, Grandpa's birthday party was held in the afternoon at his house so what went on after that? I find it intriguing that not one of Teresa's friends mentions seeing her at any Halloween party at all. Well, after looking at the phone records again...
On the 30th, both Teresa and Ryan don't make or receive calls after about 5:45 pm (hers, his - around 3:30) and they don't resume again until approximately 9 am on Monday am. Could they have actually been together?
What if things got serious and Ryan found the nude pics, maybe read emails while she was gone to work and confronted her when she returned home?
Just a backwards thought...
[–]JJacks61 14 points 1 day ago
Your backwards thinking has merit, and your comment below (damage to the Rav4) raises a big red flag. This was a glaring error on his part, but as we so often mention, we know none of these players ever expected this saga to be put under the microscope. (Why TF accepted this at face value is another red flag)
It is possible he has some involvement here. The LIE about the Rav4 damage, and the LIE about how he got into her phone records put him in really bad light. There had to be a motivation for him to do this. Motive. How much of this did FACTbender and LIEgert know? I suspect they knew far more and simply buried it.
The 21 blocked number phone calls on Nov 4 is another huge red flag. Yes, more questions. Great post OP! Always question the narrative we have been told.
[–]missingtruth[S] 26 points 2 days ago
The one thing about Ryan that I can't seem to let him off the hook over is the lie about the damage to her vehicle.
If it had happened month's ago as supposedly reported by her family and friends, I have to believe her family, who worked with the organization to have the missing person's posters printed, would have certainly included that as a vehicle identifier.
According to Tom P., she was really proud of her car. He saw her 4 to 5 days a week. Surely he would have noticed the damage.
S. Schmitz said her vehicle looked new.
I'm convinced KZ took her Rav and knows the pole, which she included a pic of in her motion for PCR, is exactly what damaged Teresa's vehicle.
I also think she believes that Ryan's call to TH on 11/1 at 6:42 that only shows a 4 second duration is because he interrupted the greeting with the input of the 4 digit code and deleted voicemails.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/70rmt9/a_backwards_thought/
11/10/2017: Inquistr recycles false KK story about Steven calling AutoTrader on 11/03/2005
ReplyDelete(self.TickTockManitowoc)
submitted 1 day ago * by magilla39
It is my understanding that Steve S. of Sheboygan called AutoTrader on 11/03/2005 and tried to reschedule his appointment, because Teresa never came by on 10/31/2005. An AutoTrader employee mistook this Steve for Steven Avery and Ken Kratz has been misrepresenting this information ever since.
[–]Moonborne11 10 points 3 days ago*
Good post and I tend to agree with you. KZ indicated that TH had appointments in Sheboygan that morning. Combine that with the DC affidavit and 21112 could not be her home tower. Or it is and someone altered the records to make it appear she was home.
[–]seekingtruthforgood[S] 9 points 3 days ago
If we believe KZ, the witness, Teresa's own written notes... she was not home that morning, and therefore 21112 isn't her home tower. I can see why people hear 1:30. I hear a very subtle extra syllable, which to me, makes it sound like 11:30... maybe I'm wrong. I could be, but I just don't think so... I've always heard it that way but recently understood better what it means and why it's important... not to mention the call has several glaring issues and edits...
[–]holdyermackerels 3 points 3 days ago
The extra sound is a start/stop of a bit of cross-talk.
[–]MATTBLANIC 3 points 2 days ago
Here is an enhanced version I think it clearly says 1:30 in the afternoon -
http://acrmediaserver.us/130.mp3
[–]seekingtruthforgood[S] 3 points 2 days ago
I ran it through Audition and think you may be right. It's weird because I am still picking up on the beginning of what sounds like the start of "eleven." But, I also hear the "one" sometimes.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/7c273s/wiegert_and_remiker_call_confirms_new_holstein/
[–]cannotsleep_jr[S]
ReplyDeleteFalsified voicemails:
https://i.redd.it/dgkjonujwl701.png
I've always had a concern about the H&H Color lab number because the TH phone records show a number of 816178xxxx. Today, I correlated those phone calls to TF's voicemail descriptions. (http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Exhibit-62-Agent-Fassbender-VM-Report_Redacted.pdf).
There are 4 messages that do not have CLI#. Guess which ones? Each of the messages from "Dan" at the Color Lab do not have that entry. There are two in the image and there is one later in the day on 11/2 according to TF, but not in KZs records because they do not go that far.
In addition, the there is one other message missing the CLI#.
And...that one is the Nov 1st 4:59 call. This call looks like it is actually an out call to voicemail from the phone itself. I wrote a post that I can't link about that awhile back. And, this is also the questionable Visa/Master card processing phone call.
It may be possible that the number is blocked and therefore is not showing up. However, it is suspicious that it looks just like every other call from the phone to voicemail.
Perhaps these voicemail entries were faked. Why would they be faked? Because each entry shows an access to voicemail.
The 816178xxxx calls show a call to THs cell number and then a simultaneous access to THs voicemail number originating from the 816178xxx. I'm speculating that these calls are actually transferring to voicemail to listen to messages rather than leaving messages.
And call marked by the red rectangle is smoking gun. It shows the phone still was active and called voicemail on Nov 1st at 5pm. So, TF needed to make it look like a message was left so no one would suspect that the phone was still active.
I think I would really really like to hear this visa/master card message or have KZ confirm it exists. I suspect the vm doesn't exist...
Why do the H&H color labs have missing CLI# if the explanation is that the number is blocked or not attached. The H&H records have a number that just isn't in th VM records.
I am adding one more screen shot for an observation on the call identification numbers - notice for every date, based on whether an old message or new message, the call id's seem to go in order... except a couple - the highlighted one is the one that made me revisit the numbers... it's weird - 2 from 10/31 and 1 from Nov 1 do not seem to make sense...
https://imgur.com/FRPEiVb
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/7nkyjv/falisfied_voicemails/
Minutes Used report compared to AT&T report (i.redd.it)
ReplyDeletesubmitted 1 day ago by cannotsleep_jr
https://i.redd.it/upvq8bm550b01.jpg
[–]cannotsleep_jr[S]
My conclusion is that KZ can get answers to all of our lingering questions and guesses at how the phone records work. How could she not find experts that understand how to interpret these simultaneous calls and why they don't use minutes. KZ knows the DC call exists even though it is not on the AT&T record and she had experts to explain how the records work. I think there is truth in the phone records that will set SA free. I just don't have quite enough pieces to say what that truth is exactly yet and KZ is not sharing those peices with me. (And why would she share those pieces with a random anonymous redditor.)
Also, I would say that to begin with LE was genuinely looking at the minutes used report and they is why there were so many missing calls not explored.
I would speculate that RH did modify that very last minutes used record that has no reasonable link to the AT&T records. And, as soon as LE received the subpoenaed phone records, LE knew RH did it because of his phone record manipulation. However, LE already had their sights on SA and it solved too many problems change course.
I saw a link on twitter to a post that said the online phone records where accessed at 5:49pm and again at 7:18pm. So, of course, the 5:49 is the printout that I'm referencing.
Why would someone log back in at 7:18? The OP suggested that maybe RH gave the password to KP. But, why if they had a printout already.
Maybe LE got the password from RH and logged back in. At 7:18, LE logs into THs account discover that RH manipulated the last record. LE decides at that time do they want to use RH to frame SA or bring in SA. Interestingly enough, this is exactly the time that DJ, JL, DR and AC are meeting with JD joining them in progress. And, I suspect the sheriff is on the phone with them.
[–]4jstce
Also, notice on the 31st it says to get Sarah's stuff from Mom and then next to it says to send Sarah a thank you/copy? If you remember KH said that she had last seen TH on when? Monday.....
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/7rhh82/minutes_used_report_compared_to_att_report/
[–]HuNuWutWen 35 points 2 days ago
ReplyDeleteNo matter how you choose to interpret the Tower/antennae sector data, several facts are undeniable...
Steven's cell phone continually pinged his "home tower/sector" throughout the critical time frame on the 31st...and Steven's physical whereabouts are also corroborated at numerous times throughout that day...look at Steven's phone records, it's obvious... Steven stayed put, at ASY...
Teresa was alive and well at 2:27 pm, so everything before that time is actually irrelevant, we know that she's alive because she accepted a call, spoke (to A/Trader)) for 4:45 min. , Teresa was driving while talking, this is OBVIOUS, her phone passes through, traverses an entire cell antennae sector during that conversation, so she is clearly in her car, driving AWAY from ASY, her phone subsequently pings a tower/antennae sector several miles away from ASY.
Teresa and Steven were quite simply in two different geographic locations at this critically important point in time, and as Teresa's phone LAST pinged at 2:41 pm, this clearly illustrates that Teresa was FARTHER away from ASY than her previous ping, so she was obviously not driving towards Steven, she had departed ASY, Teresa was driving away from ASY, this is blatantly obvious, and Steven remained at ASY, as is illustrated by Steven's outgoing calls at this time, on his phone records.
Steven stayed put. Teresa drove in, click-click, money-please thanks see ya next time bye bye. Teresa drove away, these encounters were very brief, only several minutes, by everyone's estimation.
... look at her cell phone as it moves from one sector to the adjacent sectors, chronologically... she drove away from ASY...
... Steven did not kill Teresa...
[–]foghaze 18 points 2 days ago*
ReplyDeleteThe call at 2:27 was incoming not outgoing. Not only that but according to her cell records she never called AT the entire year. In fact the only number she calls with the 414 area code is her voicemail. She makes no calls for the whole year with the 414 area code. This revelation is damning as it gets. Also according to her records anytime AT called her (only 6 times prior to 10/31) she let it go to VM. Which means she never had a 2 way convo with anyone from AT. This is according to the phone records KZ got. For the whole year. So the question is why would Teresa suddenly talk to Dawn for almost 5 minutes (on the day she disappears) when she had never spoken to her before? This just adds one more reason to add to the growing list of why the 2:27 call was not really AT. LE needed that call to prove Teresa was “on her way”. If she had never called nor spoken to anyone from AT for an entire year why did she start on 10/31? It’s all a bunch of BS and LE covered up the true caller. The most important call she got and LE buried it to make up their own evidence. I’ve found nothing to prove this call was AT. In fact everything I have found only supports this call wasn’t AT.
[–]thed0ngs0ng 8 points 1 day ago
I couldn't agree more. No way that 2:27 call, if it even occurred, was AT.
If it did occur, I suspect it came from the suspicious cell phone that PI Pam supposedly found although she didn't know when she found it or which law enforcement agency she gave it to. You made a fantastic post about this mysterious cell phone, I highly recommend people take a look at it:
www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/4v8v06/the_mysterious_cell_phone_found_off_sth_147_was/
It appears that absolutely no attempt was made to figure out who owned the cell phone or what phone numbers had been called from this cell phone. No explanation was given for why this cell phone, which was found miles away from the salvage yard, was collected as evidence in this case. There must be a reason law enforcement recorded the wrong model name and number.
[–]SBRH33 4 points 4 hours ago*
We all keep coming back to the phone records and data.
We fall back onto this subject because it is searingly important.
It tells a clear story.
And that story does not line up at all with the prosecutions timeline or narrative of events.
Folks, Zellner has cracked this code a long time ago. Unfortunately it isn't enough to extricate Steve from his position.
She will keep developing as much evidence of his innocence as possible leaving no stone unturned.
It will be a long battle for the physical evidence to be further tested. The State will not let that happen easily..... but they will eventually have to succumb to the fact that they have to let her have access to the rest for testing and analysis.
Analyzing and testing the RAV will be her acme event.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/8239av/duration_discrepancy_of_the_new_cell_records_and/
TH paid an extra $4.99 a month on her contract and that covered the first 200 texts, it's in her phone contract (Exhibit 380) so she clearly did text a lot.
ReplyDelete[–]Bowzer
Can also confirm texting was a thing back then. I remember paying 25¢ for each text! Anyways, I remember seeing on one of KZ's recent exhibits of RH's phone bills, he as well had texting, but he only used a handful of what was allotted to him. I think it's safe to say that they all texted each other back then.
[–]JJacks61
We've never seen any text messages from Teresa even though she paid extra for expanded services. It's right there on her bill. Without a doubt, texting is something a 25 year old would do.
Still need those monthly bills she would have gotten. That would list the total number of texts for that billing cycle.
[–]Eric_eats_a_Banana
Exactly, her bills would have shown the number of text and probably (and more importantly) the date and time of the texts and the number that the texts were sent to. My bills had this information prior to 2005. My guess is LE requested or had access to these bills and realised it would point away from SA so they never disclosed them and in return hoped DS & JB wouldn't pursue hard if they provided them with her phone call data.
[–]foghaze
You can’t get text messages because cell companies do not save messages on their servers. They are only saved on the local phone which was destroyed. So unfortunately there was no way to get that info.
Edit. Apparently people don’t like this answer but it is the factual answer.
[–]makingacanadian[S]
What about the data though? Example.
At 915 am she Recieved a text from such and such number.
[–]Eric_eats_a_Banana
Absolutely that type of data should be available, it's what is printed on your monthly bill so if LE didn't have the bills the cell phone company should have easily have been able to provide this information, for at least 12 months worth of bills.
[–]makingacanadian[S]
Yet none of us have seen it as far as I know.
[–]Eric_eats_a_Banana
No we haven't, I think LE got access to her itemised bills through the phone company or even just RH printing them off but they decided to keep this quiet and instead handed over the phone calls part to DS & JB hoping they would not pursue the texts to any great lengths.
It's just itemised billing, I had that in the UK prior to 2005, I can't imagine the US were behind us in that regard? My bills would should the date and time of the text and the number that the text was sent to, exactly the same information you get from the itemised calls part of the bill.
Yes no actual content but even the information of who she was texting and when could have been important. Did she suddenly text a previously unseen number on her bills in the days leading up to the murder, or even on the murder day itself? Did she send a text after she left SA's? Even without the content this could have introduced a goldmine of new information. In my opinion LE would have seen these bills and intentionally kept them quiet.
[–]PubTender
The actual messages could have been provided via a subpoena. This is from my comment below, replying to the OP:
Text messages were retrievable at least as far back as 2002 (I am sure earlier, but am using this case as an example). Without names being mentioned, there was a Mayor in the Midwest that found himself in a jam, he lied to cover his rear end. The text message content was subpoenaed and the cell phone carrier provided the text of those messages. Here is a snippet from an article and part of the text messages provided. https://imgur.com/gallery/L8UtKjT
Scott B calls CASO dispatch on 11/7/2005 at 5:45 PM with a receipt he needs to get to Pagel right away.
DeleteWhat was this receipt? Anyone find it in caso?
https://clyp.it/r3wpnox2
Teresa's Cingular billing cycle began on the 2nd of the month, so maybe Scott was calling because Teresa's bill just came in the mail.
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Trial-Exhibit-380-Cingular-Contract.pdf