The Blood Was Planted in the RAV4 After It Was Removed from Avery Salvage Yard

They planted blood in the RAV4 but maybe it wasn't Steven Avery's blood.

Or perhaps the blood they swabbed in Steven Avery's bathroom was labelled as the blood they found in the RAV4, while also planting blood in the RAV4 from the vial.

Or the swabs and cuttings that purportedly came from the RAV4 could have been swabs and cuttings from Avery's Grand Am. And the Grand Am swabs simply were relabeled as RAV4 swabs.

According to current post-conviction counsel's expert, Dr. Reich, the most common way for forensic evidence to be planted is by re-labeling the forensic swabs. (Affidavit of Dr. Reich, P-C Exhibit 15).

Avery's blood allegedly was found in six places in Teresa Halbach's RAV4 (front driver’s side portion, floor by the console, right of the ignition area, front passenger seat, CD case on front passenger seat, and a metal panel between the backseat and cargo area).

Nick Stahlke, a blood pattern expert from the State Crime Lab, testified the blood pattern was consistent with transfer stains and "passive drops," which are indicative of active bleeding. Similar stains and drops were found in Avery's Grand Am.



Ken Kratz argued that the blood from Steven Avery's bathroom could not have been planted in Avery's vehicle because that blood was collected by Det. Remiker and Sgt. Tyson on November 5, 2005, around 10:00-11:00 p.m. and the RAV4 was already enclosed and locked in a trailer on its way to the Wisconsin State Crime Lab in Madison.   

They waited over eight hours to tow a locked vehicle involved in a missing person case.

WI State Crime Lab Analyst John Ertl was questioned on direct examination by Fallon. Fallon was leading Ertl down the timeframe when he first arrived at Avery Salvage Yard and what he saw. Ertl explained that he got the call at noon and told law enforcement to put a tarp over the vehicle as rain was forthcoming. Ertl did not arrive at the salvage yard until 4 PM. He said “they had removed the tarp just as we arrived.” He testified that when he finally got to the RAV4 after checking in, all the doors were locked and he looked inside shining a flashlight. This is at about 4:30 PM, a big gap of time from when the car was first discovered six hours earlier, at around 10:30 AM.

John Ertl said he then administered the loading of the RAV4 by a wrecker into a covered trailer for transport from the salvage yard to the State Crime Lab at 4626 University Avenue in Madison.

Fassbender testified at Avery's trial that they started loading the RAV4 onto a storage trailer around 7:30 PM on Saturday, November 5th:

Q. What was done with the vehicle, if you know, and were you involved in that?

A. Yes, I was involved in that, to a degree. Probably about 7:30-ish, that evening, with the rain coming down, I was asked to take the wrecker service, Rabas Wrecker Service, down to the area by the car crusher. Another, I guess, wrecker service was also there, Pethan -- Pethan, out of Calumet County. They had an enclosed trailer that could carry vehicles. They were also there, came down to that location. At that point, the Crime Lab personnel that were there accompanied the wrecker operator over to the RAV4 location where they hooked up the RAV4 and towed it back to the location by the car crusher, where the enclosed trailer was waiting, and they backed it into that enclosed trailer and secured it in that enclosed trailer.

[...]

Q. How was it loaded on the vehicle, was it started up or something?

A. No, the wrecker operator backed it into that trailer. There was a ramp set out and the wrecker operator backed it right up into that trailer and then it was secured.

Fassbender also testified that people were signing off from the scene around 10 PM on Saturday, November 5th:

Q. All right. Would you make note of the last page, which is toward the end of the day when people signing off. You said around 10:00 people were knocking off on -- this is the first Friday, November 5th -- I'm sorry, Saturday, November 5th?

A. Yes. 

Q. Most of the investigation detectives were leaving around 10-ish, something like that?

A. Ten, eleven, sure.

Ertl said he left the Avery property at 8:45 p.m. (the driver hauling the RAV4 on an enclosed trailer also left at this time, as did DA Ken Kratz). Ertl said the RAV4 on the enclosed trailer arrived in Madison at 1:15 a.m. on Sunday morning. Ertl said he called a local wrecker to remove the RAV4 from the trailer. Ertl said he finished securing the RAV4 in the crime lab at about 2:00 a.m. Was Kratz with him?

The RAV4, on an enclosed trailer, began its journey to the Wisconsin State Crime Lab, 160 miles from Avery Salvage Yard, at 8:45 PM on Saturday, November 5th. It didn't arrrive until 1:15 AM. The defense never asked any witnesses about why it took four hours for the RAV4 to arrive at the Wisconsin State Crime Lab in Madision when the trip, per Google Maps, should have taken 2 hours and 45 minutes at the latest.
 
Were there stops along the way? If so, was the blood planted then? Or was the blood planted after it was secured at the crime lab at 2 AM on Sunday, November 6th, and before Groffy began his work later that morning?

Interestingly, Ken Kratz left Avery Salvage Yard on November 5th at the exact same time as Nick Mursburger, the man driving the RAV4 to the crime lab on the enclosed trailer.



Everyone reported that all the doors were locked when the RAV4 was found on the Avery property around 10:30 a.m. on November 5th.

When the photographer arrived at the crime lab "mid morning" on November 6th, he found the driver's door of the RAV4 unlocked.

Somehow, someone unlocked the driver's door after it left the Avery property. But the next morning, when the photographer arrived at the crime lab, the driver's door was unlocked when it shouldn't have been.

Cpl. Chris Wendorf of CASO reported that he was given a key to the RAV4 on November 11th, and the key was made in order to enter the RAV4 "as the original key had not been located at the time they had received the vehicle."

"Also given to me by MEIER was a key the WI STATE CRIME LAB had made in order to enter the Toyota RAV4 vehicle as the original vehicle key had not been located at the time they had received the vehicle." [Page 230] 

The key that Lenk and Colborn found in Avery's bedroom on November 8th was the valet key to Teresa's RAV4. Teresa's key chain with her master car keys, house key and studio key was never found.

Here's the photograph of the valet key with its evidence label.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/exhibit-key-4.jpg


The key found in Steve Avery's trailer was not the master key. It was the valet key.

Source - Reddit / Toyota RAV4 Manual
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMur...s_anyone_have_a_high_resolution_photo_of_the/










Side-by-side comparison of Teresa Halbach’s purported lanyard attached to the key found on Avery's bedroom floor (left) and the key collected into evidence as having been found on the bedroom floor (right)

EXCLUSIVE: NEW STEVEN AVERY VIDEO PROVES HE WAS FRAMED,‘MAKING A MURDERER’ DEFENSE ATTORNEY SAYS (VIDEO AT LINK)

BY JOSH SAUL, NEWSWEEK

December 12, 2017

A never-before-seen video shows that evidence against the subject of the hit documentary Making a Murderer must have been planted or fabricated, defense attorney Kathleen Zellner tells Newsweek.

The video is one of multiple experiments Zellner conducted to show faults in key evidence used to convict Steven Avery of murder in his 2007 trial. Zellner described the videos in court papers she filed this summer as part of his appeal, and she filed the actual videos with the court on Friday.

One of the videos shows an experiment where Zellner tried to re-create the chain of events police and prosecutors said led them to find a key belonging to Avery’s victim near a bookshelf in his bedroom after they had searched the room multiple times. Another of the videos shows a blood spatter experiment, during which Zellner and her team dripped blood on and inside a car to disprove a central prosecutorial theory.

“It shows the case is a complete fraud,” Zellner told Newsweek, referring to the bookshelf experiment. “I don’t know how long this case will take me, but it’s going to fall apart.”

Avery was convicted of murdering Teresa Halbach, a photographer who was killed sometime after driving to the Avery family’s auto salvage yard in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin on Halloween for work in 2005.

This photo was shown at Steven Avery's trial and shows a key that allegedly belongs to murder victim Teresa Halbach where it was found in Avery's bedroom. Defense attorney Kathleen Zellner conducted an experiment she says proves police planted the key there to frame Avery.

The case received international attention in late 2015 with the release of the Netflix documentary Making a Murderer, which led many to believe Avery had been framed. (The documentary also recounted Avery’s wrongful conviction for a 1985 rape in Manitowoc County and how he served 18 years in prison before that conviction was overturned.)

Avery’s bedroom had been searched multiple times before the key to Halbach’s Rav4 was discovered lying next to the bookcase. At the trial, police and prosecutors said the key had been hidden inside the bookcase. They said a police officer put a photo album into the bookcase, knocking the key out onto the floor.

But Zellner says her experiment, carried out with an identical bookcase she purchased at an antique shop, clearly shows the key was planted by police because there’s no possible way it could have ended up in that position after falling out of the bookcase.

“Cases are won on those kinds of details,” Zellner said. “There’s no way with the forces of gravity that it would end up by the slippers.”

Another of the videos Zellner filed with the court is of an experiment she conducted with human blood to show that the spatters inside the Rav4 were definitely planted and could not have been left by Avery—who had earlier cut his hand—without his getting blood on other parts of the vehicle, she said.

Zellner has a long history of success with unorthodox experiments: She once dropped a headless lamb in a creek as part of a successful bid to exonerate a father who had been arrested for murdering his daughter.

A county judge in October denied Avery’s motion for a new trial, but the appeal will now be considered by a Wisconsin appeals court, according to online court records.

She has spent about $233,000 on experts in her drive to prove Avery innocent. Of that, $175,000 was her own money and the rest came from the Midwest Innocence Project, the Avery family and donations.

Although Lenk says he found the key, it was logged in and processed by Kucharski of CCSD and has a CCSD evidence log number. It is item No. 7620 for case report 05-179. Why was it is not listed on the Calumet County Sheriff log? Was it because it was still at the Crime Lab?

WI State Crime Lab Analyst John Ertl testified on direct examination on day 6 (page 20). Kratz didn’t have duties for this witness. Is this because Kratz and Ertl, who left Avery Salvage Yard at the same time as the driver who towed the RAV4 to the crime lab, were at the crime lab together when it arrived at 1:15 a.m. on November 6th?

Instead, it was Fallon asking the questions for the prosecution. Fallon lead Ertl down the timeframe when he first arrived at Avery Salvage Yard and what he saw. Very important to note, during testimony Ertl explains, he got the call at noon and did not arrive at ASY until 4 PM on November 5th. He told LE at noon via phone to put a tarp over the vehicle as rain was forthcoming, and “they had removed the tarp just as we arrived” (page 15). He states when he finally got to the car after checking in, all the doors were locked and he looked inside shining a flashlight. He said there was no blood visible inside the vehicle when at ASY.

WI State Crime Lab Forensic Imaging Specialist Ronald Groffy photographed the car on Sunday, November 6th. The time when he did this work isn’t given specifically at trial. But he was the first person to take pictures at the crime lab, that is known. 

Neither Kratz nor Fallon questioned him at trial. He was questioned by Gahn, who walked him through Exhibits 289 through 305, totally focusing on the blood in the photographs. On cross examination (day 10, page 64), he stated the driver’s door was unlocked when he got there, and all other doors were locked. This contradicts Nicole Sturm's and Ertl's testimony of all doors being locked while at ASY.

WI State Crime Lab Forensic Imaging Specialist Ronald Groffy photographed the RAV4 on Sunday, November 6th. The time he started this work wasn’t given specifically at trial, but it is known that he was the first person to take pictures at the crime lab.

Neither Kratz nor Fallon questioned him at trial. He was questioned by Gahn, who walked him through Exhibits 289 through 305, totally focusing on the blood in the photographs. On cross examination, he stated that when he got there all the doors were locked except for the driver’s door. This contradicts Nicole Sturm's and John Ertl's testimonies that of all the doors were locked while it was at Avery Salvage Yard.

Per witness statements and testimony, there was no blood visible inside the RAV4 at 4:30 PM on Saturday, November 5th, but definitely there was blood in Groffy's photographs taken on Sunday, November 6th.

CASO, Page 230

DATE OF ACTIVITY: 11/11/05
REPORTING OFFICER: Cpl. Chris Wendorf

On 11/11/05 at 1000 hours, I (Cpl. CHRIS WENDORF of the CALUMET COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT) was asked to report to the sheriff's department for a scheduled trip to Madison to retrieve two vehicles with tow units.

At 1045 hours on same date, Lt. JOHN BYRNES of the CALUMET COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT and I did leave from the Chilton area en route with SCOTT'S TOWING's flatbed operated by BRYAN ROEHRIG, and DAN'S TOWING's flatbed operated by DAN BANGART.

At 1300 hours, we did arrive at the WI STATE CRIME LAB on University Avenue in Madison, WI and did take possession of a blue, 4-door, Toyota RAV4 vehicle with the VIN of JT3HP10V5X7113044, and a 1993 Pontiac Grand Am with a VIN of 1G2NW14N9PC726145. This evidence was collected from LUCY A. MEIER, a WI STATE CRIME LAB technician at 1300 hours. Also given to me was the hood of a Rambler vehicle.

The two vehicles were loaded on the flatbed tow trucks. The Toyota RAV4 was loaded on the SCOTT'S TOWING flatbed along with the hood of the Rambler strapped to the flatbed undemeath the Toyota RAV4. The Pontiac Grand Am was loaded onto the DAN'S TOWING flatbed unit.

Also given to me by MEIER was a key the WI STATE CRIME LAB had made in order to enter the Toyota RAV4 vehicle as the original vehicle key had not been located at the time they had received the vehicle.

Also while at the WI STATE CRIME LAB, I had delivered an envelope addressed to the WI STATE CRIME LAB that had been given to me by Deputy HAWKINS that did contain evidence with a Buccal swab from STEVEN AVERY and palm and print cards from CHARLES AVERY, EARL AVERY and BOBBY DASSEY. This evidence package was turned over to SUE E. GITCHEL of the WISCONSIN STATE CRIME LAB and taken by her at 1323 hours on same date. GITCHEL did give me a Receipt of Physical Evidence form, which will be submitted to the Deputy HAWKINS, the evidence custodian.

At 1330 hours, we did depart from the WI STATE CRIME LAB in Madison en route to Chilton storage units. During the return trip, I did have constant visual of the TOYOTA RAV4 and there was no entry made to the vehicle by anyone. The vehicle did not come off the tow unit until 1540 hours when we arrived at the Chilton storage units where the vehicles were stored.

The Toyota RAV4 was stored in unit #7 of the storage units off of Mary Avenue in the City of Chilton. I did personally view the offloading of the vehicle and did utilize the key that had been made to turn the wheels so that it could be placed inside the storage unit. I then did tape the vehicle doors with evidence tape and initial, date and time stamp such evidence tape. The unit was then closed and locked with a fresh, brand new Master Lock key lock that had been removed from its packaging.

Lt. BYRNES did remain with the Pontiac Grand Am and he did evidence tape seal the doors to that vehicle and initial that evidence tape as well. See supplemental report from Lt. BYRNES.

At that point, I did also close the garage door to storage unit I of the same complex and opened a fresh Master Lock key lock from the packaging and used that to secure the garage door.

Evidence tags were filled out and placed under the windshield wipers of the vehicles secured in the storage units. Property Tag No. 8027 belongs to the Toyota RAV4 and Property Tag No. 8028 is for the Pontiac Grand Am.

The vehicles were stored in the storage units off of Mary Avenue and a key copy that was made for the Toyota RAV4 was brought back to the sheriff's department along with keys for the Master Locks used to secure the garage doors.

The following sets of keys were bagged, sealed and labeled for evidence and submitted to the evidence storage area in the evidence room at the CALUMET COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT:

• Bag No. I with Property Tag No. 8037 is a key copy for the Toyota RAV4 that was made by the WI STATE CRIME LAB, collected at 1300 hours, same time vehicles were collected. .
• Bag No. 2 with Properly Tag No. 8038 contains two Master Lock keys for storage unit #7. This storage unit contains the Toyota RAV4 and the hood for the Rambler.
• Bag No. 3 with Property Tag No. 8039 contains two Master Lock keys for storage unit I, which contains the Pontiac Grand Am.

Evidence bags and property tags, along with evidence, were deposited in Locker #1 of the storage area to await the property custodian for proper logging. This was done at approximately 1930 hours after Sgt. TYSON did retum and open the evidence area.

Cpl. Chris Wendorf
Calumet Co. Sheriff s Dept.
CW/bdg

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/exhibit-RAV4-evidence.jpg



Did you see blood inside the RAV4 at ASY?
By get_them_crooKKs at TickTockManitowoc
January 12, 2017

I have to admit, I just read the transcript of the entire Steven Avery trial with an eye towards who might have perjured themselves. I even started to write about that but, believe it or not, only the obvious ones stick out. I may still figure out a way to write about that.

But in reading the transcripts I also kept notes for anything that stuck out or caught my eye as important. I found that only four people at trial were asked if they saw blood in the RAV4 when it was at ASY. This is on Saturday the 5th, fresh from the Pam of God moment around 10:20am to later on around 4:30pm.

All pages referenced are from the testimony as posted here: http://www.stevenaverycase.org/jury-trial-index/

Another thing to note, the first three people to answer the question if they saw blood inside the RAV4 were all done under cross examination. The fourth though was asked on direct by Thomas Fallon. He must have slipped up or was expecting a different answer.

First person to be asked: Pam Sturm, page 238 during cross examination. She answers point blank that she did not see blood inside the car, no hesitation. This is pretty huge as she is the first person to see the car that fateful Saturday.

Second person: her daughter Nicole Sturm, pages 16-17 during cross examination. Ken Kratz objects when she dodges the question when it was asked; she did not give a yes or no answer at first. KK now knowing the question would be forthcoming most likely coached her response, and thus objected. But the judge overruled and made her answer. She says she did not see blood inside the vehicle.

This is the second person to see the car that day. Two for two, no blood visible inside. This is early morning.

Third person to be asked: Sergeant Jason Orth, pages 159-60 during cross examination. He blatantly dodges the question when first asked. It’s quite comical how he tries to avoid it, saying how he was thirty feet from the vehicle and couldn’t see inside; this immediately after saying he could see inside and read Teresa Halbach first name on a digital camera card. Wow. Jerome Buting keeps at it and he eventually has to say that he did not see blood looking inside passenger side window or rear tailgate window.

Three for three, no blood visible inside the vehicle when at ASY. This is still early morning.

Fourth person to be asked, WI State Crime Lab Analyst John Ertl, page 20 on direct. KK didn’t have duties for this witness; it was TF asking the questions for the prosecution. TF was leading JE down the timeframe when he first arrived at ASY and what he saw. Very important to note, during testimony JE explains he got the call at noon and did not arrive at ASY until 4pm.

He told LE at noon via phone to put a tarp over the vehicle as rain was forthcoming, and “they had removed the tarp just as we arrived” (page 15). He states, when he finally got to the car after checking in, all the doors were locked, and he looked inside shining a flashlight.

Four for four, no blood visible inside the vehicle when at ASY. This is now let’s say 4:30pm. That’s a big gap of time from when the car was first discovered six hours earlier.

John Ertl then administers the loading of the car by a wrecker into a covered trailer for transport to Madison, to which they arrived at 1:15am Sunday morning (page 32). He then calls a local wrecker in to get the vehicle out of the covered trailer, and the RAV4 is then secured by 2am in a garage at the WI State Crime Lab.

OK, one last thing to mention about the vehicle. WI State Crime Lab Forensic Imaging Specialist Ronald Groffy then photographs the car on Sunday November 6. The time when he did this work isn’t given specifically at trial. But he is the first person to take pictures at the crime lab, that is known.

Neither KK nor TF questioned him at trial; he was questioned by Norm Gahn, who walks him through Exhibits 289 through 305, totally focusing on the blood in the photographs. Surely this is fine for the prosecution’s story. But on cross examination, page 64, he states the driver’s door was unlocked when he got there, and all other doors were locked. This contradicts NS and JE testimony of all doors being locked while at ASY.

ALERT: hypotheses forthcoming. The above is based on facts as taken from testimony at trial. What follows is my humble opinion.

So, no blood visible inside the RAV4 at 4:30pm on Saturday November 5th but definitely in RG photographs taken Sunday November 6th.

There’s been all sorts of speculation about the RAV4 delivery to the WI State Crime Lab.

Were there stops along the way? If so, why?

Was the car doctored before RG takes photographs and begins his work? Etc.

I have to admit, I’ve been following this thing hard since seeing MaM. At first I was totally convinced that James Lenk and Andy Colborn were dirty and planted evidence. But as time has gone on, Kathleen Zellner’s posts and filings are fascinating to me and are swaying my thinking.

Although they weren’t put into evidence at trial for obvious reasons, pictures were taken of the interior of the RAV4 at ASY. Let’s say KZ got her hands on them. They clearly show no blood. Four people at trial all say they saw no blood inside the car Saturday at ASY. OK, so she probably asks herself, so how did it get there a short time later on Sunday, and how could I prove how it got there?

KZ tweet from May 17, 2016 states, “SA evidence planted – trailer, garage, fire pit, burn barrel and car. Brendan Dassey evidence planted – in his mind. Both: badly done.”

For the sake of this argument I’m only focusing on the blood in the car. Through testing she probably connected the dots that the blood came from a source other than the much discussed SA vial.

Dead stop right there. Let that sink in. We all know the money the county was on the hook for in the civil lawsuit. They need that lawsuit to go away. Surely that’s motive. But the genius in this case is they distanced themselves from the investigation at every turn, letting the other county lead. The other county. Let that sink in: the other county leads the investigation.

As much as it pains me to think it, JL and AC might just be pawns for the other county’s needs.

Surely AC and the calling in the car plates is perplexing. And JL is still very shady, seemingly present at every key evidence finding, no pun intended. But they could be just party line men doing the job they are told to do: investigate, find evidence.

And that they did -- in the investigation led by the other county.

KZ tweet from December 4, 2016 states, “Experts experiments confirm SA’s trial attorneys correct about blood being planted but incorrect about how it was done.”

What I suggest to all is to think about this case that way: one county most likely involved with the murder, one county directs the investigation that builds the case for the trial.

One – the act. Two – the investigation.

One – clean, distant, seamless. Two – muddy, ugly, questionable.

Connected but not really.

One – prior to 10:20am Saturday November 5th. Two – after 10:20am Saturday November 5th.

Each side has their purpose and each side has plausible deniability for their actions.

It’s freaking brilliant, devious as hell, and quite despicable, but brilliant nonetheless.

We aren’t stupid and know that KK led the charge orchestrating the cause for Two. But there isn’t much we know about One.

I think KZ is connecting the dots along these lines. It’s mind blowing to ponder. I have every faith in her to get the case thrown out due to the planted evidence. That covers number Two.

But if she reveals the murderer, with evidence, covering the all elusive number One, my goodness that would be beyond anything my brain can comprehend.

I cannot wait to see justice prevail.

By FIB1 at Reddit
February 29, 2016

I am talking about the rear hatch/tailgate. There is no inside release to open the hatch. You either use a key or press the unlock button on the driver's door which requires electricity. If you don't have a key or battery, you make a key or pick the lock.

Did LE make a duplicate key for the RAV4 before the key was "found" in SA's trailer? I'm leaning that way. Even if I accept that the RAV4 was locked when it was delivered to the Crime Lab (the trial testimony is far from conclusive on even this simple issue), LE still has some explaining to do about how the RAV4 was mysteriously unlocked at the crime lab.

Ertl testified he delivered a locked RAV4 to the Crime Lab no later than 2:00 am on the 6th. Photographer Groffey was called in mid-morning on the 6th by the lab supervisor to take pictures before the evidence technicians started their work. Groffey testified that the driver's door--and only the driver's door--was unlocked when he first approached the car. Groffey was then able to reach around inside and unlock the other doors. That cannot be true. Groffey could NOT manually unlock the rear hatch/tailgate door from inside because there was no power to the electric locks and NO unlock lever on the inside of the rear door. See page 11 of the manual.

http://www.ownersmanualsforcars.com/manuals.item.3690/Toyota-RAV4-Owners-Manual-1999.html

So Groffey was either not telling the truth about only the driver's door being unlocked when he arrived or he was not telling the truth about unlocking the rear hatch door. The manual override lever to unlock the doors in the event of a loss of electrical power only unlocks the driver's and passengers' doors!

Now maybe the crime lab used a slim jim or similar tool to unlock the driver's door, but the rear door requires a key or electricity to unlock or actually picking the lock. I would love to have some feedback from a locksmith.

The possibility that LE made a key is supported by the Calumet County Evidence List which shows a RAV4 copy key in evidence and which copy key has a different log number (8037) than the "found" RAV4 key (7620). See page 14.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Calumet-County-Sheriffs-Department-Evidence-List.pdf

So if LE made a key to unlock the car by the 6th, it could not have been a surprise that the "found" key fit in the locks on the 8th. The possibility that LE made one or more new keys is consistent with my earlier post positing the "found" key used a newer key blank for 2001 and newer RAV4s, not the round key blank for 1999 models.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/45o4ij/wrong_model_key_planted/?

I read through his testimony, and I don't think they really addressed if he unlocked the cargo door, only the other doors (but it's worded so that it could mean either way). He did, however, testify that he had access to the cargo area with the rear door open no later than the 8th, and I don't believe there is an interior door handle on the cargo door. So yeah, now it seems there are two times when doors magically unlocked - first the driver's door, then possibly later, the cargo door.

Strang and Buting built part of their defense on the theory that the RAV4 was tampered with by LE at the Avery Yard AFTER it was found. Remember all of the testimony about the tarp creating a tent over the car and hiding it from view?

Let's consider the three scenarios--tampered with before placed at Avery Yard, tampered with while at Avery Yard, and tampered with after left Avery Yard. If your consensus thought train is correct and the vehicle was filled with incriminating evidence, placed at the Avery Yard and then securely locked, why was it unlocked at the Crime Lab? Without a satisfactory explanation, there is a failure of the chain of custody and there is a profound failure to maintain the integrity of the evidence. By themselves, those compromises could have been grounds to suppress all evidence recovered from the vehicle. The defense's request to suppress the evidence would have been strengthened by the inability of ANYONE to testify that they observed any blood evidence while the vehicle was at Avery's.

For scenario 2, tampered with while at Avery's, if the doors were actually UNLOCKED at Avery's as evidenced by the doors still being unlocked when delivered to the Crime Lab, then the defense is majorly helped. Evidence technician Ertl's credibility is out the window because he said the doors were locked and were still locked when he left it at the Crime Lab. The theory of planting by Strang and Buting becomes that much more plausible.

Now for scenario number 3, tampered with at the Crime Lab, if all testimony was that the vehicle was locked when it was delivered and yet somehow it is not locked, then there is again a flagrant lack of evidence preservation. If you do not know who unlocked the car, you do not know who accessed the car, when, and for what purposes. If you were a reviewing court, how likely would you be to affirm the integrity of the evidence found when no one can establish how or when the evidence got there? It is a fundamental problem for the prosecution.

My post was really following one aspect of scenario 3, that the car was locked when delivered but then unlocked. If I am right about the rear hatch needing a key to be unlocked and the CCSD log reflecting the existence of a second key, then the "found" key becomes that much more suspect. Being able to show that LE made a duplicate key before the 8th when the key was found and that the key blank was wrong to me is strong evidence in support of a planting argument.

There is no conclusive factual basis for anyone to accept that the RAV4 was locked at the Avery Yard. Please understand that KZ was not at Avery's Yard when the RAV4 was placed, found, or hauled away. She is trying to reconstruct what happened according to the evidence she was provided and has generated herself. KZ's tweet suggesting that the RAV4 was locked at Avery's Yard does have some testimony to support it, but the testimony is vague and leaves big holes.

If you read the transcripts of the trial and preliminary examination, only three people testified to any firsthand knowledge of the RAV4 being locked at the yard. Pam and Nikole Sturm testified they tried the doors and they were locked. Pam Sturm thought the RAV4 was a 2-door--not exactly confidence building about her recall of events. Nikole admitted she NEVER tried the rear hatch/tailgate! Do these two people convince anyone on this site the RAV4 was locked?

The only other person to testify on the issue was evidence technician Ertl. Day6, p. 17. He said "we" checked the doors and the RAV4 was locked. When I read word "we" instead of "I", I take that to mean that Ertl himself did not check every door. Otherwise he would have said, "I checked each door and the tailgate and they were all locked."

I do not know whether the RAV4 was locked at the Avery Yard, and I do not have access to most of the evidence and photographs collected in the investigation. All I can do for now is try to direct some inquiries toward areas that are most troubling to me.

It appears there was a time when the RAV4 was covered with a tarp. Almost like a tent. People are speculating that since the car was "hidden" something could have been tampered with. Also note from what I can tell from the transcripts is Remiker, Colborn and Lenk were there before everyone from Calumet and well before the crime lab got there. Lenk says he got the call late morning and he supposedly went straight over there. I think it was about 11am. So the fact Manitowoc was there before many others is troubling to me.

• The FIRST time when we know the RAV4 was unlocked was mid-morning on November 6, when Groffey arrived at the lab.
• Groffey said only the driver's door was unlocked
• Groffey never opened the hood and the battery was disconnected until fingerprint expert Nick Stahlke tried to check the odometer on November 7. Stahlke said he was the first person to open the hood. Day 11, 230: Day 12, 51.
• Groffey took photos of the cargo area on November 6, so he opened the rear hatch at some point.
• The rear hatch cannot be opened without a key or without battery power to the electric locks.
• The rear hatch is not a trunk where there is the prospect of a child being locked inside. Anyone can simply exit the car through the read passenger door. That is why there is no manual unlock lever inside the car for the rear hatch.
• If someone at the Crime Lab unlocked the driver's door on November 6 before Groffey arrived, that is the only door that person unlocked. How do we know? Because if the intent of the "unlocker" was to facilitate access for Groffey and other lab workers, the "unlocker" would have either (1) walked around the vehicle and manually unlocked all of the doors, (2) only unlocked the driver's door under the reasonable belief that there was battery power and the lab techs could simply unlock all of the other doors using the master unlock button, or (3) unlocked the driver's door, opened the door, and pushed the master unlock button himself at which time he would have realized none of the other doors unlocked because of no power and then unlocked the other doors.
• Therefore, either Groffey lied when he said he unlocked the rear hatch, OR Ertl lied when he said the rear hatch was locked when he left the RAV4 at the lab at 2:00 am on the 6th, OR someone made a duplicate key and used it the morning of November 6 or unlock the rear hatch OR someone picked the lock of the rear hatch the morning of the 6th.
• Each of these scenarios implicates a fundamental break in the chain of custody/preservation of the integrity of the evidence.
• The "found" key was delivered to the Crime Lab on November 8 and Culhane said she checked it the same day.
• We do not know for sure the RAV4 was locked when it was at the Avery Yard. The Sturms admitted they did not check the rear hatch and Ertl never specifically testified he checked the rear hatch. It is a gaping hole in the trial testimony.

Comments:

The original version of the Calumet County Sheriff’s Dept. Exhibit/Property Ledger is rather cumbersome, isn't it? So I did some copy/paste and word processing work and shoved it into an Excel spreadsheet available here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jyvwt4rsw4o7dw3/CCSD%20Prop%20Tags.xlsx?dl=0

Two lists are in this workbook: the original list - as is and a second version sorted by the Ledger # and property tag #. Have at it and have fun ;-)

Colborn or Lenk had Teresa's set of keys that were "never recovered." They got them when Colborn found the SUV on Zipperer's property the evening of November 3rd. It's what they used to drive the vehicle to Avery's Auto Salvage on the evening of November 4th. And they made a copy before they destroyed her set of keys.

I can't find log number 7620 on page 14. I downloaded the pdf and did document search. When I search the document for "key" I get the 3 hits on p 14:

05-205 8037 key copy for Toyota Rav
05-195 8114 key
05-195 8012 2 keys on 2003 key ring

Again only the first one is specifically listed as being for a Toyota Rav4, so I wonder where the evidence is that 8114 or 8012 are also Rav4 keys, if that is what people are thinking. I believe that 8037 is the key that they found in Avery's bedroom -- the magic key. I believe that they call it a copy because it is not the "main key" for a Toyota Rav4 but rather the valet key. I believe that "copy of Rav4 key" doesn't mean it is the second Rav4 key they found, with the first one being the original key they found. I'm not arguing -- I just want to get onto the same page. I can't find reference to any other Rav4 key (explicitly mentioned) besides 8037. Or that Lenk planted it while it was still on Avery lot, during the tarp fiasco, while he wasn't signed in. Then he locked it to seal planted evidence in. Just so many unknowns and possibilities in this case.

That is, Steve Avery's blood/DNA was planted in the RAV4 at the Avery yard.

That is a great find that the found key matches the 2001 shape and not the 1999 shape. That would be amazing if he found key was actually made by LE.

The lab would have any means necessary to open the vehicle without a key. I was just emphasizing my own frustration with the fact that nobody knows who unlocked it! :) If Goffey had to use something to get the cargo door open, or wait for someone else to do it, why wouldn't he mention that? If the door could be opened manually from the inside, that means he was crawling around the vehicle and the evidence to do it! LOL Or, there was a key. I don't know what to make of it all!

I think there are two keys. I think LE needed one to unlock all doors on the 6th. The "found" key is critical evidence and is supposed to be carefully tracked. I just think LE made two keys. Here is an example where I think a second key was probably used for convenience. At the Avery yard, the RAV4 wheels were turned to the right. Now look at the photo after the car was put into the storage locker. The wheels are straighter. Someone probably unlocked the steering column and turned the wheels.

I think the key recovered is actually the sub key.

1999 rav4 owners manual

1. Master key—This key works in every lock.(square key)
2. Sub key—This key will not work in the glove box. (Round Key)

You think two made at the same time? I was thinking maybe having to make the key might explain the delay in finding the key in the trailer. Could also be because it was the first opportunity for Lenk and Colburn weren't being watched as closely. Although that story makes little sense to me anyway. Why send them into the trailer in the first place if you really think they need watching. Unfortunately finding photographic or other evidence of a second key may be difficult in this case. They didn't take all that many photographs it seems. May be possible to track down the maker of the key(s) and get records that way. If the found key was caused to be produced by LE it would explain allot. Like why it looked new and had no other DNA on it.

Check this out:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/45o4ij/wrong_model_key_planted/

Only that a duplicate key was made and used by mid-morning on the 6th. For all I know they could have made a key on the 5th or days before the 6th once the VIN of the RAV4 was disclosed.

I suppose, phone ahead with the VIN number to a Madison Toyota dealership and pick up a newly cut key (or two) when they arrived at Madison? I would think that should show up on the car fax, but it doesn't. I rang the dealership to confirm your suspicions, you sir are correct. You cannot manually unlock the rear hatch with the battery disconnected. If they used the central locking to open the car doors, they had reconnected the battery. Sherry Culhane testified that when she tried the key from SA evidence the key turned but the engine didn't turn over.

Who, when and HOW did the crime lab unlock the locked RAV? Copy key? When made by whom?

I believe that when TH bought RAV4, Toyota dealer provides her the new spare key because this car was sold as used car and possibly the original spare key wasn't there. This could be confirmed by Toyota dealer only. Hence, your reference to the newest shape of the 'head' (not the round key blank for 1999) is very-very possible and makes sense. Now, I have no doubts (same as you), that LE made duplicate key for Lab Technician to check mechanical parts/operation (put car on lift or whatever) and other car's examinations. When this duplicate was made? IMO, as soon as the new spare key was found inside of RAV4 on Nov. 6. I have absolutely no proof of that. But possibility is very high that this spare key was never used by TH and was inside of the car. And as soon as driver door has been opened---bingo!----key was found. In regards who, when and how opened the driver door during the night, prior Groffy's arrival, I think majority of people here could make the 'logical guess':)...jmo.

Sounds like something I said about a month ago here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/44etgn/who_unlocked_the_rav4/

But that's cool. I like this issue. Here's a pic of how far Groffy would have had to reach to unlock/open the back trunk door.

http://imgur.com/GhlNmeZ

So, not very far, really. It's possible, at least. Looks to only be 3-4 feet at most, so an arms length or so. As far as the key goes, I'm not seeing an item #7620 in this list. So I don't know what to say about that being a different key than the one they "found" in the trailer.

The other tag on the key is interesting in that it says Madison Lab and has the label as M05-2467 #C and is dated and initialed/signed as 11/08/05. Wonder where the key got logged in as evidence? Cal. Co., MTSO or Madison Crime Lab? And if the Tag # 7620 is the key shown in Evidence photograph as 05-179 Tag #7620 why does the "key copy for Toyota Rav" show up as different Evidence Tag # for Cal. Co.? Kucharski was with Lenk when he found it -- he was the CC officer "babysitting" the MTSO people that day when they searched Avery's trailer - he was the one logging the evidence, see p 35 and thereabouts in day 9 of the Avery trial transcripts. Kucharski is asked to identify a photograph that is marked into evidence as Ex 219 on p 37. I don't know if that is the same photograph as the one you linked - /u/SkippTopp do we have a way of knowing what the evidence numbers are of the photos in http://www.stevenaverycase.org/photos/?

1999 Rav4 Owners Manual keys

This just goes to show the two different keys for the Rav4. The master key and the valet(sub) key.

The sub key matches the description of the key that was found in the bedroom. I don't know if copy keys are made to be sub keys or master keys.

I think some people might call the sub key a copy of the master key. But I can't say why the evidence number on the bag doesn't match the one in the list from CC sheriff's office.

Is there pictures of both keys or just the one they found? Because if not it would be interesting to test the "copy key" for DNA and see if it comes back as Avery's DNA and that'll show that the found key is the copy key. Only a photograph of the "found" key was used in the trial. When Skiptopp gets more documents hopefully there will be more pictures. KZ does have the full file of all photographs and test results.

Also if the battery was disconnected like LE states then it would have been impossible to unlock the doors automatically (if her doors were automatic). Side note: If you have a VIN number you can get a copy of the key.

Exhibits 295 - 301 are specifically the pictures I need to find out were taken on 11/6 to aid your find, FIB1. Groffy was tough to pin down how many doors he opened and what pictures he took on 11/6. He took photos, per testimony, over the course of three days under the direction of three other techs.

Q. Okay. Could you just tell us which ones, if any, were taken on the 6th?

A. That would be State's Exhibit 289, 290, 292, and 293, of the ones that I have.

[http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Jury-Trial-Transcript-Day-10-2007Feb23.pdf#page=67] Page 67

Darn. He says he didn't take the rear cargo pix on the 6th.

But wait! Buting caught him in a lie right off the bat because Groffy did presumptive test on blood at ignition and CARGO AREA on the 6th, with Harrington:

Q. Okay. And the two of you then did this presumptive test for blood?
A. That is not correct. I did the presumptive test for the blood.
Q. Okay. Was that a phenolphthalein test or was that some other test?
A. That is what we called a phenolphthalein test.
Q. Okay. So is it specific for human and animal, or just any kind of blood?
A. I do not have that knowledge, sir.
Q. Okay. But, you did get a positive on the ignition stain and that larger area that you mentioned over in the cargo area, kind of on the passenger side?
A. That's correct I had a positive test for those two areas.
Q. Those are the only two areas that you tested, though?
A. That is correct.
Q. Did you do any other tests that day or take any other pictures?
A. My activities were limited to photographing the exterior portions of the RAV4. And then the interior portions that we could get photographs of without actually having to go inside the vehicle and get those pictures before other analysts could have a chance at processing the vehicle.

[http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Jury-Trial-Transcript-Day-10-2007Feb23.pdf#page=50] Page 65 and 66

So, only exterior and broad interior from open doors so not inside the vehicle...yet totally inside the vehicle to do presumptive tests.

And if he did the blood test, then he got the cargo door open somehow and I would imagine, took some of the photos 295 to 301, eh?

Groffy opened the cargo door:

Q. Did you notice whether there were ever more items in the rear of this area, or was it always, when you first saw it, did it look like this?

A. When I opened up the cargo door and took this photograph, that was what was in the back of that vehicle, sir." Same link, page 69

Notice Buting says "When you first saw it"...and tested the cargo stain for blood, right?

I wondered why Buting was asking for items not in the photos...did Groffy see this or that...and him not recalling. Wow...read this on Page 70:

Q. And would you have -- would you have been asked to take photographs of any of those kinds of items before they had been removed or touched in anyway?

A. I may or may not have been, it would have been at the discretion of the analyst processing the vehicle whether or not they wanted that photographed.

"I may or may not have been" Could Harrington have directed him to NOT take photos of some items in the vehicle? The top of the lanyard? Cameras? Something? On the 6th?

Okay, continuing to Page 73, Buting seems to think Groffy is the guy who opened the tailgate with a key:

Q. And does that look like that's where the key goes in, as well?

A. I believe that's the position where the key was put in, yes.

Groffy might have meant in general, but he used past tense.