There was a problem under the hood of Teresa Halbach's RAV4: the wrong size battery. #MakingAMurdererhttps://t.co/Xb2RejeWmW— Lick The Knife (@RenyRoha) November 17, 2018
Battery Replacement: 1996-2000 Toyota RAV4 - 2000 Toyota RAV4 2.0L 4 Cyl. https://t.co/AK5shyzdTK #fixeditmyself via @CarCareKiosk
"Interstate ships to fleets thereby their batteries are one of the few with serial numbers. Unbeknownst to me, until I was updated by KZ's team, Interstate also has an 'batch number' that allows them to track a battery throughout the shipping process." - CaseFilesReviewer, December 1, 2018
The 1991-1995 Crown Victoria used the Interstate MT-58 battery. The 1992 model of Crown Victoria was basically referred to as the "police interceptor." According to an article written in April 2000 (see tweet below), the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Office began transitioning from the Ford Crown Victoria squad car to the Chevy Impala model.
Special thanks to @MysticJynx and @BerlySays1 and others, including the initial h/t to Redditor CaseFilesReviewer, without whom this whole discussion might not even matter. I bring you this...enjoy this story:https://t.co/gDypcut0rX— TickTockManitowoc (@TManitowoc) November 18, 2018
The battery size (group 58) found in the RAV4 was only standard in Crown Victorias before 1995 and a few trim levels between 1985-1997 (not including the police "interceptors," which law enforcement were much more likely to have in the fleet). After 1997, most Crown Victorias used the group 65 battery size. So it's not just a matter of finding Crown Vics around Avery Salvage Yard in 2005ish, it's a matter of also going back 10 years prior and identifying the year of the Crown Vics. It's also possible the county was installing nonstandard sized batteries for other reasons, but this is all moot because even if we prove MCSO had vehicles with this type of battery in them (which truly shouldn't be difficult because the majority of police cars across USA in the early to mid 90s were Crown Vics),the only thing that matters is how and by whom that incorrect battery got installed in the RAV4, and whether or not that specific battery can be directly traced to a purchaser other than the victim or Steven Avery. Kathleen Zellner insinuates by her Twitter reply that indeed it was traced to someone. [Source]
In the set of "Police Cars of Wisconsin" at the link below, about halfway though you'll see a 1996 Crown Victoria police car without the "police package" (the 1996 is around 30 out of 80 images):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/triborough/sets/72157628885534663/
There are other Manitowoc Crown Victorias, but the 1996 Crown Vic is the model that has a BCI group size 58 battery like the one found in the RAV4. It's an unmarked police car, which almost every town has.
Also, at the link below is a BCI data book about car batteries:
https://flashoffroad.com/4runner/articles/battery/bci_2014-battery.pdf
Page 6 - Battery Council International Group Sizes are and how to interpret the data
Page 7 - BCI group 35 cell layout
Page 8 - BCI group 58 cell layout (notice the positive and negative are switched, this is why the battery is "upside down" in the RAV4)
Page 35 - Ford Crown Victoria
Page 51 - Toyota RAV4
[Source]
[–]bu2002 wrote a reddit:
When the electronics are added, it is VERY common the alternator does not get upgraded to handle the added electronics and gradually wear down batteries at a much faster rate than normal wear, hence why they upgrade the battery in the beginning. This results in replacement batteries being kept "around," especially when it gets cold as batteries do NOT do the same in the cold, over time.
Furthermore, if they ARE left in a vehicle that is used as a "partial" conversion, i.e. an unmarked/undercover car or lieutenant's car, they are ordered in bulk as replacement parts and kept documented, as most government property, which is used for warranty or replacement from the vendor or local battery distributor.
It's a county, so there are several officials who have county vehicles as well (such as the County Executive), who usually get a similar vehicle, such as a Crown Victoria, that simply does not get the patrol features added. All being serviced and maintenanced at a county facility/barn/shop. Replacement parts would be available for basic service like oil, washers, batteries.
Buying [Impalas starting in 2000] implies going forward, NOT fully turning over the county inventory. That is all budgeted and would not be financially possible to switch the entire lot all at once. For example, high mileage patrol cars are switched out frequently while the county commissioner vehicles are switched out every decade or longer in some cases.
There are several sources of vehicles in a county inventory. Jail transport for example, training vehicles, specialty vehicles. If any Crown Vics were used in any capacity, the county would have maintenance parts in inventory. Batteries are very commonly replaced in cold weather climates. Vehicles with low mileage implies infrequent use which also would correspond to why they still had them in use and needing an infrequent used spare part.
KATHLEEN ZELLNER'S QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION ON TWITTER, NOVEMBER 15, 2018:
Q: How do you know [the RAV4's battery] was replaced?
A: We've confirmed that it was replaced with the wrong-sized battery for the RAV4—the same size battery that is used in Crown Victorias.
Q: How do we know the battery died?
A: Because it was replaced with the wrong size battery and it was still under warranty.
Q: Have your traced who changed the battery or owned the battery that was put in her car?
A: Yes.
They had to explain why, pre-discovery, the battery was disconnected. To fit the narrative of Steven Avery being guilty, he must have been the only person to have been under the hood, so they planted his DNA on the hood latch to leave little doubt of that. Why go to the trouble of creating/planting more evidence months later? Because someone who is not Steven Avery was under the hood, and someone who is not Steven Avery disconnected the battery.
They planted Steven Avery's DNA on the hood latch to place him under the hood, disconnecting the battery, beyond reasonable doubt.
It's covering something, rather than confirming something.
Fassbender and Wiegert had no reason to ask Brendan Dassey about Steven going under the hood. But they did, and the question is why?
Because investigators found themselves in a situation where there was no denying the battery was disconnected when the RAV4 was discovered at Avery Auto Salvage. And they had to explain why.
And this has probative value. It was important enough for them to place Steven under the hood beyond reasonable doubt (with DNA) rather than it being someone or anyone else.
Someone was under the hood WHO shouldn't have been (killer, planter, or LE with a conflict of interest) or someone was under the hood WHEN they shouldn't have been (LE before the 'locked' vehicle was first transported or forensically assessed). Certainly, it was something sinister.
Teresa bought her 1999 RAV4 in 2003. A wrong-size Interstate MT-58 battery was in the RAV4 when it was found. The MT-58 placed in the RAV4 was manufactured in 2004.
Teresa’s 2003 purchase of the RAV4 pre-dates the 2004 manufacture-date of the MT-58 battery in place when the RAV4 was discovered at Avery Auto Salvage. This battery was not already installed when Teresa bought the RAV4.
Whoever placed this over-sized Interstate battery in the RAV4 did it out of quick necessity.
The RAV4 having a MT-58 BATTERY in place at the time of its discovery at ASY is a high value clue: The battery was connected on the evening of the 4th, meaning the RAV4 was driven, not towed, into the salvage yard. And after the RAV4 was driven into the pit of ASY, there was an effort to remove the battery, but the effort was aborted when Steven Avery and Bobby Dassey went to investigate headlights that Chuck Avery spotted in the pit.
Why would the battery be disconnected if the RAV4 was locked and nobody had been in the car or under the hood since before or after it was found at ASY?
LE needed an explanation and reason why the battery already was disconnected when it arrived at the crime lab in Madison after being transported in an enclosed trailer from ASY. So LE planted Steven Avery's DNA under the hood as the reason why the battery was disconnected. Then they got Brendon to corroborate the story.
CASO Page 605
FASSBENDER: OK. Did he, did he, did he go and look at the engine, did he raise the hood at all or anything like that? To do something to that car?
BRENDAN: Yeah.
FASSBENDER: What was that? (pause)
WIEGERT: What did he do, Brendan?
WIEGERT: It's OK, what did he do?
FASSBENDER: What did he do under the hood, if that's what he did? (pause)
BRENDAN: I don't know what he did, but I know he went under.
FASSBENDER: He did raise the hood? (Brendan nods "yes") You remember that?
BRENDAN: Yeah.
WIEGERT: While he was raising the hood, did you take that license plates off?
BRENDAN: (shakes head "no") No.
WIEGERT: Who did?
BRENDAN: He did.
WIEGERT: OK.
FASSBENDER: What did he do with the license plates after that?
BRENDAN: I don't know.
WIEGERT: But you were with him, what did you guys do with 'em?
BRENDAN: He took 'em off...
WIEGERT: And where did he put 'em?
BRENDAN: He had 'em in his house but I don't know after where he put 'em.
WIEGERT: You saw him put 'em in the house? (Brendan nods "yes") And you also saw him do what? Put the key
BRENDAN: Yeah
WIEGERT: Where'd
BRENDAN: In his dresser.
WIEGERT: He put the key?
BRENDAN: In his dresser.
WIEGERT: In his dresser. Where was the knife that he used, 'er you used. Where'd that knife go?
BRENDAN: He left it in the jeep.
CASO Page 838
WIEGERT: Did he tell you that he unhooked the battery on her jeep?
BRENDAN: Not that I know of.
The Manitowoc County Sheriff's Office (MTSO) Investigation Report, on page 3 of 3, reports Ms. Teresa Halbach's vehicle was seized into evidence on November 3rd, 2005. The MTSO Activity Log, on page 1 of 3, reports Mr. Steven Avery was entered into MTSO's CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) as the suspect of a non-negligent homicide on November 3rd, 2005 at 6:34pm. All said documents are inconsistent with the State's account of the crime, but would be consistent with Ms. Teresa Halbach's body and vehicle being found on November 3rd, 2005.
November 3rd, 2005 is the date a witness claims to have informed Officer Colborn where to find Ms. Teresa Halbach's vehicle.
[With] Officer Colborn testifying as being a customer of Avery Auto Salvage (he'd go there to find parts for his 1950 Chevy pickup), it seemed reasonable to conclude an Officer [Colborn] planted the plates the evening of the 3rd [and] then the vehicle the evening of the 4th.
Planting the plates on the 3rd and staging the vehicle on the 4th: Exhibits 3 & 4 revealed the plates had been folded into fourths then unfolded, which Mr. Steven Avery would not have needed to do, and the folding suggested the planter needed to conceal the plates in a jacket pocket. Exhibits 140 & 141 revealed the station wagon's window had been smashed. That could be easily done by using a large MagLight flashlight commonly carried by the police.
In consideration of Exhibit 302, it seemed reasonable to conclude the plates were planted to connect Mr. Steven Avery to Ms. Teresa Hablach's vehicle in the event a battery wasn't obtained.
The battery (Exhibit 302) offers a way to find Ms. Halbach's killer or an evidence planter.
The battery is not a RAV4 battery as evident by it not fitting under the battery hold down.
A 1999 RAV4 uses a group size 35 battery, which in Interstate batteries would be a MT-35. The MT-58, found in the RAV4, is for vehicles such as the Jeep Wrangler [and Ford Crown Victoria]. The installation of an incorrect battery suggests Ms. Halbach's vehicle was ditched in such haste a door was left ajar [or her keys was left in the ignition].
The “J4” on the battery's top left corner indicates month and year manufactured. The letter “J” is the 10th letter of the alphabet thereby the battery was manufactured in October. The “4” is the last digit of the year thereby the battery was manufactured in 2004. On the battery top's left lip is a serial number that is barely visible in the photo. If obtained, the battery can be traced, revealing where it was shipped and purchased, and if registered for warranty, the buyer's name.
[–]7-pairs-of-panties
BOTH batteries had warranties. Teresa’s car was still under warranty. The Interstate M5-58 battery put in the car, the wrong one, was ALSO under warranty as it was from Oct of 04. It was sold to someone be it a person or an organization, and that battery ALSO held a warranty since it was just barely a year old, and batteries have warranties for typically 3 years.
[-] magiclougie
You could expect at least 50,000 miles from the tires that come with any new vehicle.
On average, a car battery lasts from 5 to 7 years and an average of 4 years (the RAV4 was 4-5 years old when Teresa purchased it).
On 1/24/2002, before Teresa bought the car, the original owner had it serviced. At the time the tires were rotated and the battery checked, but neither were replaced (per Carfax).
https://imgur.com/a/iUHv5#AId2706
A dealer bought the car at an auto auction a little more than a year later, on 3/6/2003. At this time the dealer, which may have been LeMieux Toyota of Green Bay, more than likely installed new tires and possibly a new battery. If so, they would have records with dates of the warranties linked to the buyer's name (Teresa).
On 4/4/2003, the RAV4 had 38,379 miles on it.
On 4/8/2003, Teresa purchased the RAV4.
On 10/28/2004, Teresa had the RAV4 serviced at Auto Select Inc. in De Pere, WI (per Carfax).
https://imgur.com/a/iUHv5#AId2706
When she got it serviced on 10/28/2004, it had 63,482 miles on it (during this 18-month period, Teresa had driven 25,103 miles, an average of 1500 miles per month).
If the dealer did not replace the original tires when they bought the car at auction on 3/6/2003, then it still would had the original tires on it. If so, she most likely would have purchased tires on this date, but Auto Select didn't input all the maintenance performed that day (only wiper replacement showed up in Carfax).
If the dealer had not replaced the original battery when Teresa purchased the RAV4, she also most likely would have replaced the battery at this time since the original battery was five years old. It was late October in Wisconsin, and waiting until the deep freeze of winter to replace your battery is often too late.
For warranty purposes, LeMieux Toyota or Auto Select would have recorded/stored in their records the purchase date under Teresa's name.
Zellner says the battery was still under warranty; therefore, if it was defective or had died, Teresa would have taken it to LeMieux Toyota or Auto Select to have it replaced under warranty with the proper battery.
LeMieux Toyota in Green Bay or Auto Select in De Pere would have maintenance records for Teresa's RAV4. Zellner would have contacted them to see if/when a new battery was installed in Teresa's RAV4, and what make and model it was and if the battery was still under warranty as of 10/31/2005.
Former Location:
AUTO SELECT INC
825 Main Ave, De Pere, WI - 54115
(920) 964-0034
Present Location:
Auto Select Green Bay West
2045 S Oneida St.
Green Bay, WI 54304
920-494-4936
[–]7-pairs-of-panties
BOTH batteries had warranties. Teresa’s car was still under warranty. The Interstate M5-58 battery put in the car, the wrong one, was ALSO under warranty as it was from Oct of 04. It was sold to someone be it a person or an organization, and that battery ALSO held a warranty since it was just barely a year old, and batteries have warranties for typically 3 years.
[-] magiclougie
You could expect at least 50,000 miles from the tires that come with any new vehicle.
On average, a car battery lasts from 5 to 7 years and an average of 4 years (the RAV4 was 4-5 years old when Teresa purchased it).
On 1/24/2002, before Teresa bought the car, the original owner had it serviced. At the time the tires were rotated and the battery checked, but neither were replaced (per Carfax).
https://imgur.com/a/iUHv5#AId2706
A dealer bought the car at an auto auction a little more than a year later, on 3/6/2003. At this time the dealer, which may have been LeMieux Toyota of Green Bay, more than likely installed new tires and possibly a new battery. If so, they would have records with dates of the warranties linked to the buyer's name (Teresa).
On 4/4/2003, the RAV4 had 38,379 miles on it.
On 4/8/2003, Teresa purchased the RAV4.
On 10/28/2004, Teresa had the RAV4 serviced at Auto Select Inc. in De Pere, WI (per Carfax).
https://imgur.com/a/iUHv5#AId2706
When she got it serviced on 10/28/2004, it had 63,482 miles on it (during this 18-month period, Teresa had driven 25,103 miles, an average of 1500 miles per month).
If the dealer did not replace the original tires when they bought the car at auction on 3/6/2003, then it still would had the original tires on it. If so, she most likely would have purchased tires on this date, but Auto Select didn't input all the maintenance performed that day (only wiper replacement showed up in Carfax).
If the dealer had not replaced the original battery when Teresa purchased the RAV4, she also most likely would have replaced the battery at this time since the original battery was five years old. It was late October in Wisconsin, and waiting until the deep freeze of winter to replace your battery is often too late.
For warranty purposes, LeMieux Toyota or Auto Select would have recorded/stored in their records the purchase date under Teresa's name.
Zellner says the battery was still under warranty; therefore, if it was defective or had died, Teresa would have taken it to LeMieux Toyota or Auto Select to have it replaced under warranty with the proper battery.
LeMieux Toyota in Green Bay or Auto Select in De Pere would have maintenance records for Teresa's RAV4. Zellner would have contacted them to see if/when a new battery was installed in Teresa's RAV4, and what make and model it was and if the battery was still under warranty as of 10/31/2005.
Former Location:
AUTO SELECT INC
825 Main Ave, De Pere, WI - 54115
(920) 964-0034
Present Location:
Auto Select Green Bay West
2045 S Oneida St.
Green Bay, WI 54304
920-494-4936
The battery KZ was referencing was the one found in TH's RAV4. The battery found in TH's car did not fit the battery mounts thereby TH wouldn't have been driving around with the battery given it would have slid around under the hood. Additionally, TH's RAV4's CarFax established she didn't have the battery installed. The guilters claim it may have been installed by the auction house were it was purchased is bogus. The car was sold at auction in April 03' and the battery found in the car was manufactured in October 04'. Lastly, neither a garage nor dealer would have installed the wrong battery for liability reason nor would parts store have sold the wrong battery. Especially, given the Group Size 35 used by TH's car is far more common than a Group Size 58. In fact,my local parts stores stocks 35s but not 58s and the place I buy parts on line doesn't even sell 58s.
The battery found in TH's RAV4 is a Interstate battery and Interstate warranties their batteries for 18 months. The date code on the battery found in TH's RAV4 is "J4". The "J" denotes the month the battery was manufactured, "J" is the 10th letter of the alphabet thereby denoting 10th month thereby October. The "4" is the last digit of the year the battery was manufactured thereby 2004. The battery was found in TH's car in November 2005 thereby well within its 18 month warranty period.
The battery was a fleet battery as evident by its sticker not being punched. Had the battery been purchased at a retail location its sticker would have been punched to denote warranty from date of purchase. Only a few car models use group size 58 and the area is rural thereby there wouldn't be many places Interstate would be shipping group size 58 batteries. Subsequently, the battery found in TH's RAV4 would be very easy for KZ's team to trace.
The claim Crown Vic Police Interceptors didn't use Group Size 58 is true. However, not all Crown Vics purchased by a municipalities are Interceptors. Interceptors are purchased for high speed pursuits thereby they're purchased for Highway Patrol. Non-Interceptor Crown Vics are purchased for Patrol Cops, Parking Cops, Building Inspectors, Meter Readers....etc. etc. There would be no reason to believe KZ's team didn't trace the battery to a fleet that has Crown Vics given she specifically named Crown Victorian.
A Group Size 58 doesn't fit nicely in a a RAV4 due to its height difference. A Group Size 58 is nearly 2" shorter (1.973" to be exact) than a RAV4 battery. Subsequently, a Group Size 58 would slide around under the hood if installed in a RAV4.
Operationally the problem with installing a Group Size 58 into a RAV4 is threefold:
1. It's going to slide around under the hood.
2. Due to the 58 having different size posts than a 35 used by a RAV4, the battery terminals fit loosely, as evident by the photo of the battery found.
3. As result of 1 & 2, the sliding around causes the loosely fitting terminals to break contact thereby resulting in vehicle not starting or stalling at idle.
The battery debunks a number of the State's claims including KK's "Sweat DNA" theory. Personally, I'm of the opinion AC swabbed some sweaty laundry while SA was in the County Jail. I believe this to be true since the lab never tested for source cells. Subsequently, no one would have been able know the source to be "sweat" unless they knew they sourced it from sweat.
The RAV4 has a cable that allows the cable to be unbolted from the terminal. The battery was most likely disconnected by the tow service before putting the car into the enclosed trailer. There is salvage auction not far from where I live and they require their drivers to disconnect recovered vehicles' batteries. They made that a requirement after they had cars catch on fire during transport.
[-] Soloandthewookiee
The batch number (more accurately the ship date) is stamped into it, it's not a barcode like would be used on in an assembly line traceability system. If they wanted to issue a recall for a batch of batteries, they would just issue a notice that says, "All batteries with ship date 'J4' should be returned to the nearest authorized retailer for replacement."
A factory fitted battery might have a traceability code on it, but Interstate is not an OEM brand, it's aftermarket. Toyota uses "TrueStart" batteries in their factories, Ford uses "Motorcraft" batteries.
[-] jamiegirl21
I am the proverbial fence sitter and rarely comment unless its something I can provide, or a conversation I can contribute to. I see so much conversation about the battery—so I decided to have a conversation with my neighbor. He owns a chunk of the Interstate Battery corporation, and runs the franchise in two states. I have been to his warehouses, and he has a personal warehouse behind his house. This comes in handy when I need a battery last minute from anything from a mower, to my car, to my sump pump.
So I decided to have a conversation with him, and he showed me his batteries, as well as my own, which have come directly from his warehouse. They have no identifiers on them at all.
He supplies to businesses like car repair shops, car businesses, fleets for all sorts. They are delivered without any identifying marks and cannot be traced to him at all EXCEPT, when they get to their destination, the provider may place an identifying marker on them, whether it be a logo, or a barcode, or a serial number—but his batteries, which are the originating source, do not go out with any identification.
Just thought I would share my little interview with him, and I welcome any questions I can chat with him again—I know his family has owned the franchise in two states for at least 20 years—so he is definitely an excellent source of knowledge on this subject. (He doesn’t use reddit, nor would I doubt he has time to).
I asked him further questions after telling him the discussion and will copy and paste his answers (with his permission).
Direct quote: There has never been a recall. Yes, there are #s on a battery they would tell you a date, plant, shift. But those #s could be on thousands of batteries. And they can never be traced back to a dealer or a customer. Let's say a Honda battery that is in your car. I have 500 of them in stock that may have the same numbers on them. They could potentially be shipped anywhere in the world from my location. I have over 1200 customers—they will sale the battery to a end user. Those numbers are never recorded on any invoices ever!! So with that being said, No, the battery can't be tracked after it leaves me.
Further direct quote: Despite buying a battery today it could be a year old when you bought it depending on how popular the battery is. Just for instance, I got batteries in from a warehouse last week that had may 2017 date on them. These were brand new, and to track one down is impossible. Interstate battery of America sales 20 million batteries a year. Johnson controls who makes our batteries—they have 6 plants that make 100 million batteries. The plant closest to us is in Middletown, Delaware. They can make 150,000 batteries a week.
Furthermore, people always buy or are sold the wrong battery. Why? Money is the main reason. Let's say the have a BMW or a Mercedes or even some Chrysler products—a new popular battery that these manufacturers are using would cost you $250. People freak out. They need a battery and yet they only have $100, so they just buy something that fits. We also sell blemished batteries for $43.95. I have seen people install a Ford Escort battery in a Ferrari.
Lastly, I asked him: Do the dealers you sell them to put identifiers on them?
His response was: he’s never seen that.
(This surprised me.)
He said warranties are based off paperwork provided by the seller, only identifying the date of purchase.
Interestingly, in 20 or more years of owning the franchise he has never seen any dealer put any identifying markers.
He was saying how easy it is—where people will steal batteries often from places, due to lack of traceability. He said often, when a car is stolen, he will get a phone call to see about tracing it—and he said never can he and he has no way. It sounded like a touchy subject, meaning it’s a hole in the fabric of the business.
Question I just floated to him: How does your process work supplying government/police vehicles?
Answer: I supply the police, state police and military directly with the batteries. For example, I just supplied Arlington with the batteries that run the cemetery and internal flame. All police in the states where I supply Interstate batteries get them directly from me.
Link is to battery photo taken of a shelf at a large dealership from owner of Interstate. The numbers on the side identify at which factory they were made:
https://i.imgur.com/PMVL5pE.jpg
My friend said that he received 2000 with that code, as well as other franchises. The other numbers present are the manufacture date.
This dealership does not put any other ID on battery—warranty is a generic paper (this is a very large dealership.
I think the point is: Interstate themselves doesn’t put identifier,; but the end user business may— for example a car dealership or a fleet.
The Interstate battery from the start doesn’t send out batteries with identification. The end user business may—some probably do—put their own identifiers on.
I would imagine some of the end-user businesses do put their own identifiers. Definitely if they’re used by government, and maybe car dealerships? I saw a prior user say that Autozone does not put anything on their batteries.
[-] Arts251
> Due to the 58 having different size posts than a 35 used by a RAV4 the battery terminals fit loosely as evident by the photo of the battery found.
The group 58 negative post is 17.9mm, the group 35 post (assuming it is equipped with the EN/JIS type, which is most likely as it's a japanese car and likely specifies JIN standard) is 15.9mm. So if anything the cable terminal will fit tighter, not looser. Or am I doing the math backwards here?
http://www.batterysales.com/downloads/battery-replacement-data-book-1994-2013.pdf
If you've ever changed your battery, the clamp doesn't go with it, it stays with the vehicle. You loosen the clamp from the positive and negative posts and slide them off, loosen or remove the battery hold-down and take out the battery. This is how the Rav4 battery was removed. Someone (ahem, AC), then dropped the Interstate battery in there (it somehow is fitting in there despite that it's an inch longer and a quarter inch wider than the old battery, so it might not be seated in the battery tray and just resting on top of it), pried open the jaws of the clamp a little and slid/pushed them onto the posts of the interstate battery, and did some weird finagling of the battery hold-down to make it look like it was on somehow,it might be partially holding the battery in place despite not being the correct fit (since battery is shorter and also uses a different hold down system). Later, possibly when the Rav4 was moved to the crime lab, and before the photo under the hood was taken, the clamp was disconnected from the cable by unsecuring the cable end bolt, leaving the clamp affixed to the battery.
So nothing in that photo was taken out of a Crown Vic, expect possibly the battery itself, but that is doubtful and makes things way too complicated - the battery was probably taken from a warehouse or shelf somewhere, it was probably a spare, possibly from a Crown Vic or some other vehicle that was part of the Manitowoc fleet and presumably accessible by AC or whomever else may be suspected of putting that battery in the Rav4.
[–]IntriguedLinguist
I understood it the same way you did, because I’m not sure why Battery B being under warranty would be useful information. I’ve been seeing this around a lot and I’m not sure what the logic is either.
Conversely, if Battery A is under warranty, it’s very relevant because this makes it unlikely that TH would have replaced it herself with the wrong kind of battery. She’d have taken it in to a garage to have it replaced, because it wouldn’t have cost her anything.
I don’t Zellner has confirmed which interpretation is correct, though.
[–]ApexxSyn[S]
I’m glad I’m not the only one that hasn’t found it particularly clear!
I assume the significance of the warranty on battery B scenario is that it ‘could’ link to the purchaser/source and if that source was an interesting party linked to TH in some way then that party would have to answer as to why it’s found in the RAV4 crime scene car when it shouldn’t be in there.
It’s hard to tell from KZ’s wording in the tweets exactly which battery she means has the warranty.
Either scenario is an interesting development though.
I do not think it was NECESSARY to find Avery's DNA under the hood; it was necessary to say he went under the hood because LE knew that someone other than Avery disconnected the battery.
The initial idea in my opinion was just to have Brendan say Avery did, but I believe LE realised that Brendan's word would not be solid enough evidence in court so they decided to physically tie him to the hood latch.
The reason why it isn't a blood source could be many. The blood in the RAV may not be Avery's, they may have swapped swabs or taken additional from his car or even of the sink. Or his DNA could have been added to other blood, as my recent post with a New York Times article explains.
All of that may have been unavailable to them when the after thought of the battery issue came up months later and so they had to use what they had left.
The initial idea in my opinion was just to have Brendan say Avery did, but I believe LE realised that Brendan's word would not be solid enough evidence in court so they decided to physically tie him to the hood latch.
The reason why it isn't a blood source could be many. The blood in the RAV may not be Avery's, they may have swapped swabs or taken additional from his car or even of the sink. Or his DNA could have been added to other blood, as my recent post with a New York Times article explains.
All of that may have been unavailable to them when the after thought of the battery issue came up months later and so they had to use what they had left.
Kathleen Zellner on Twitter: "We've confirmed that it was replaced with the wrong-sized battery for the RAV4—the same size battery that is used in Crown Victorias" - Police cars are traditionally and almost ALWAYS Crown Victorias.
[-] FrankFinklestein
Is it possible whoever parked the car removed the battery so the Rav4 couldn't be moved? Leaving Colborn...whoever found it, no choice but to install a new battery and quickly.
I just think if it was a dead battery they would have just boosted it, instead of swapping it out.
[-] FrankFinklestein
Are police cars all equipped with jump starters? Takes a couple of minytes to boost a battery this way. Way more efficient time wise then swapping a battery unless there was no battery to boost.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
The thing with jumping, besides it requiring someone to have jumper cables, and if the battery is really drained, it takes time for the other vehicle to charge the other vehicle's battery.
If a person is sitting along a highway, trying to get a vehicle off as fast as possible, it's far faster to just slap another battery in. This also eliminates the chance of the jumped vehicle stalling at the first stop sign/light as result of the battery not yet charged enough to run both the electronic ignition & fuel pump.
Another factor with jumping is while attempting to charge two batteries (the one if the vehicle jumping and the one in the vehicle being jumped) the alternator can be overloaded, causing its internal rheostat to blow. Many people, including myself, will no longer offer jumps as result of having blown an alternator in the process.
[-] FrankFinklestein
You don't necessarily need two vehicles to boost a car battery (jump starter, quick boost).
[-] SparePattern
I agree with the time factor in this -- your goal is to get this car moved as fast as possible unseen.
Sitting hood to hood with a car jumping it takes time and gets a lot of attention, even as little as a passerby thinking "ya, I wonder who's stuck on da side of da road der?" and trying to see if they know the person.
With replacing it, it's planned so they have tool in hand, already set on what they need to do, get it out, slam in the new one, connect, and bing bang boom.
My other thought is LE could explain away being caught under the hood "looking for evidence" but can't really explain away jumping a car when protocol would be get it towed or on a flatbed.
[-] FrankFinklestein
I know from my own experience when I forget to turn my headlights out. The next day I go and try and start my car. I first noticed the car won't start, then I noticed I left the light switch on. My immediate reaction isn't I got to swap batteries. I get my jump starter, quick boost and boost my battery. It takes one person, one car and about five minutes of time.
I think whoever found the Rav4 and came up with the idea to plant it, tried to start it, couldn't, was dead. Took a quick look around to why it was dead, light switch still on, interior lights on or whatever. Then they popped the hood to boost, and found there was no battery. Leaving them no option but to install a new battery.
[–]In_my_experience
Oh, that is another interesting idea. But why would the killer take the battery out in the first place?
The only reason I can can see for switching the battery out instead of boosting the car is you have to park your on the side of the road for the boost, and if someone drives up suddenly you can't get away without being seen. Especially if there's a blind corner or something. Or, if the Rav was left in a way that made accessing it for boosting awkward, like there were trees in the way so you couldn't easily drive up beside it.
I can imagine a situation where someone drops the other person off with a new battery at night, so they can work in the dark without being seen by anyone passing by, or hide or run into the woods if someone stopped, then once they have the battery in, they can go and plant the Rav, or meet the other person to help plant the Rav then drive them both away.
[-] FrankFinklestein
The killer didn't want the car to move to keep the police focused on the area where the Rav4 was found, while the killer cleaned the kill site, body, etc somewhere else.
The points I'm trying to make is that the battery was removed by the killer or someone that was an accessory.
The killer or accessory parked it for police to find. I believe the killer or accessory dumped the Rav4 and intended on it being its final resting place.
The killer and accessory wanted to make sure no one moved the car so they took the battery out of the Rav4.
The killer or accessory did this so the police would focus on the area of Rav4, giving the killer and accessory extended time to clean the kill spot, body, etc.
I think strongly that that if the battery was still in the Rav4 when AC found it, they simply would of just boosted it. Whether it was a boost from cables, power boost box, etc, doesn't matter.
If the battery wasn't in the Rav4 when AC found it, then that would make sense to why a different battery was in the Rav4.
In any situation where your under the gun you go with what's fastest and easiest, which would be to boost the Rav4, unless you absolutely can't and then logically you would go to step 2, replacing the battery.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
MTSO used Crown Victorias, and spare batteries would be kept in the County Garage ;)
[–]proudfootz
Or perhaps the battery came out of a car that was at a rival salvage yard in the area?
[–]rogblake
Funny you should mention that -- as many will remember, Killer Ken's buddy, Hermann, had a salvage yard, and the business used to do the police fit-outs for the area's squad cars. These facts all came to light in the Hochstetler matter.
Before he chose law enforcement, he [MTSO Sheriff Robert Hermann] had worked in an auto body shop and a salvage yard, skills that came in handy when he and his younger brother, Todd Hermann, would detail the squad cars that used to come directly from the factory as blank slates. Their work, which also included installing radio equipment and light bars, would get more elaborate and professional-looking as time went on, he said.
http://www.htrnews.com/story/news/local/2014/07/01/sheriff-robert-hermann-recalls-career-highlights-changes/11944007/[–]columbomumbojumbo
I think that series of I.B. was universal fleet use, due to the transition of the Crown Vics to the Impala. CV top post and the Impala side post connections. Quick swap for the motor pool mechanics.
[-] Newthingstobeseen
I'm thinking that they had to explain the battery being disconnected and being a different battery to distract also if someone starts looking into that.
So if they get his DNA on the hood latch, who cares why SA was doing stuff with the battery, his DNA is there!
Additionally, I remember some people saying "well he was going to crush it and changed his mind. Everyone knows that you have to take a battery out before crushing it."
Once SA's DNA was found on the hood latch, then everyone was running in different directions trying to explain what he was doing.
[-] Xenu_RulerofUniverse
How did they figure it out without access to the RAV4?
[-] Newthingstobeseen
If it's a government purchase then, yeah, it may be registered and traced in a group purchase.
[-] Kayki7
Possibly LE wasn’t able to swap it back because PoG discovered the RAV too soon.... and because of all the commotion and people around, they couldn’t. Which makes a lot of sense, seeing as 2 police departments would have been present once PoG discovered the RAV (Calumet & Manitowoc Sheriffs).
Also, PoG stated that she did see a person standing on a ridge off in the distance, just standing there.... she didn’t know who he was or what he was doing there..... this person could have been the person who was supposed to swap the battery back... but didn’t get a chance too since PoG found the RAV and called it in!
Which begs the question, where is the original battery?
[-] Arts251
Where did the prosecution go with their assertion that Brendan watched SA open the hood to disconnect the battery - did they give any explanation why SA did this?
You'd think this information would easily have led the investigation to realize the Rav4 had the wrong size battery, so who installed it?
No maintenance records (and there were a number of them for things like windshield wipers being replaced etc) indicate a battery was changed from the OEM one or suggest why the wrong size would have been installed (was it even "installed" in the Rav4 or was it just placed there without the hold-downs fastened?)
[–]sober_ogre
Back then a lot of agencies had dual batteries installed. One was for basic functioning of the car and the other was for equipment. I bet most wouldn't ever think about the town/county service garages keeping details on things like batteries.
In the photos and interviews we can see old Vics in the background. And there's the issue with LEO badges being found in the office. Maybe someone was impersonating officers.
[–]Boobah2016
NASCAR, pimped out rides running high end audio/video systems, and LEO running auxiliaries like lights, radios, computers....in a part of the country that gets cold as shit and kills batteries. Makes a shit ton of sense that they would go dual.
[-] iamnextset
Can the county just claim they put one of their batteries in the vehicle during their testing?
[–]Boobah2016
They could, but then her original battery would be put back in for the crime lab or logged separately into evidence. After all, if SA was messing with it, it's evidentiary (as opposed to, say, her transmission pan gasket, which neither SA or anyone else is accused of having tampered with).
[–]unfurL
So she is hinting that she knows that the battery was swapped by the cops?
If that’s the case, wouldn’t that be grounds for total exoneration? That proves without a doubt that they had a hand in moving the car.
[–]Boobah2016
Yes, I think she is.
While they could say they changed the battery after finding the car, they would still have to have her actual battery logged into evidence, photographed, etc, to close any reasonable doubt. After all, they asserted SA was tinkering with it, so why would the original battery not be in evidence?
[–]unfurL
Well, if they say “we changed the battery after the car was found on the property”, that would be extremely suspicious. They would need to answer why they did that, and why they didn’t tell anybody that they did that.
[–]luckystar2591
I think she's deliberately done this with a month between filing to see if she can flush out any new witnesses. There's gonna be a lot of people with brown underwear at this...and maybe someone looking to save their skin?
[–]Henbury
Moving the RAV -- they already placed him in the car (his blood), he had a motive to move or hide the car, and the car had obviously been moved. Convincing a jury he moved the car was already in the bag.
Considering there was already an awareness the battery had been disconnected, if the lab processed the car properly, the DNA under the hood should have been discovered the first time around.
Sure, they came back later and planted the bookcase key and the bullet to tie SA to the crime. This solved problems.
But it strikes me that the discovery of SA's DNA under the hood, later, doesn't fit the MO of planting evidence tying SA to the crime (although it helped).
And non-blood DNA could have been planted anywhere on or in that car, preferably somewhere not already swabbed.
And non-blood DNA could have been planted anywhere on or in that car, preferably somewhere not already swabbed.
The hood latch DNA is different. It strikes me as though the DNA was planted not to tie SA to the car or provide an alternate source of DNA; but to place SA under the hood, disconnecting the battery, beyond reasonable doubt.
Why? There must have been something that investigators/prosecutors were worried about the defence deducing or adducing from under the hood, something that was available to the defence -- so much so that they went to the trouble of planting DNA (a 'new' non-blood source for whatever reason, and albeit a non-credible one) well after the car had already been processed, to put it beyond question or curiosity.
As I said, they could have just claimed "we think SA got under the hood and disconnected the battery" like the rape claims where they had no physical evidence. But on this occasion they aimed higher.
This is concealment, not additional evidence. There's something here, and it's important.
[-] magiclougie
Yep, the Interstate 58 battery from MTSO's maintenance garage or undersheriff Hermann's salvage yard. Colborn went under the hood to replace a battery so that the RAV4 could be driven from the turnaround and planted at ASY.
[-]Earnest L Martin
They aren’t the same vehicle [Teresa Halbach's RAV4 and the RAV4 discovered at ASY].
The wheels and the dashboard VIN plate were swapped. It probably took them about 30 minutes to do it. And it was probably done in a garage, with both vehicles side by side. Maybe in a salvage yard garage? Who do we know that owns one of those (in competition with the Avery’s and happens to be owned by someone high up in law enforcement)?
But wait. What about the other VIN numbers stamped on all vehicles in various other places? Good question. Apparently no law enforcement investigators at the Avery salvage yard bothered to check those other locations. And whoever originally swapped it probably felt confident that no one would bother to check it at the crime lab, either. And why should they? Those other VIN plates are worth just about $36 million.
Amazingly, the defense attorneys never bothered to ask about them, either.
Quite possibly, the Halbach family had ties to Robert Hermann, the sheriff, who just happens to own the only competing auto salvage business to the Avery’s. One that allegedly does $1.5 million a year in business. And one that would profit greatly from any loss of business at the Avery’s due to the bad publicity of Steven Avery.
https://imgur.com/a/zJcQi3j
When you look at what really happened in the original rape case, and then look at all the players in that scripted crime, you see much more than just a local crooked law enforcement. You see associated civilian people (the club?) with means. Means to relocate someone. Someone who perhaps was looking for a ticket out of town. Or someone who was coerced, bribed or threatened to move.
Or maybe she was simply offered relocation in the state’s Witness Protection Program? You have a crooked state judicial system. You have crooked law enforcement. Both work hand in hand. What better way to eliminate someone (without murdering them) than to coerce them to accept relocation under the strict guidelines of the Witness Protection Program. And under the law, no attorney or investigator can legally expose any participants in the program. She is safe from exposure ― even if she is discovered!
But where could she have gone? Anywhere in the country. Or anywhere out of the country. Out of the country is less than a day’s journey. Maybe she even took her own green/teal RAV4, which would be why they had to substitute another vehicle. Or maybe she abandoned that vehicle on the Highway 147 turnabout where her vehicle was last spotted (parked and presumably investigated by law enforcement, which would explain why Colborn called in the plates long before the blue RAV4 is planted)?
Maybe she then ended up in the local mental facility, drugged to the point of not being able to make rational decisions on her own. Or maybe she wasn’t drugged but was just a special “guest” there until arrangements for her relocation could be made. The possibilities are endless.
http://ernestlmartin.com/avery/THE%20STEVEN%20AVERY%20CASE%20-%20SOLVED.pdf
http://ernestlmartin.com/avery/WHY%20NO%20ONE%20IS%20UNDERSTANDING%20THE%20STEVEN%20AVERY%20CASE.pdf
[-]Earnest L Martin
They aren’t the same vehicle [Teresa Halbach's RAV4 and the RAV4 discovered at ASY].
The wheels and the dashboard VIN plate were swapped. It probably took them about 30 minutes to do it. And it was probably done in a garage, with both vehicles side by side. Maybe in a salvage yard garage? Who do we know that owns one of those (in competition with the Avery’s and happens to be owned by someone high up in law enforcement)?
But wait. What about the other VIN numbers stamped on all vehicles in various other places? Good question. Apparently no law enforcement investigators at the Avery salvage yard bothered to check those other locations. And whoever originally swapped it probably felt confident that no one would bother to check it at the crime lab, either. And why should they? Those other VIN plates are worth just about $36 million.
Amazingly, the defense attorneys never bothered to ask about them, either.
Quite possibly, the Halbach family had ties to Robert Hermann, the sheriff, who just happens to own the only competing auto salvage business to the Avery’s. One that allegedly does $1.5 million a year in business. And one that would profit greatly from any loss of business at the Avery’s due to the bad publicity of Steven Avery.
https://imgur.com/a/zJcQi3j
When you look at what really happened in the original rape case, and then look at all the players in that scripted crime, you see much more than just a local crooked law enforcement. You see associated civilian people (the club?) with means. Means to relocate someone. Someone who perhaps was looking for a ticket out of town. Or someone who was coerced, bribed or threatened to move.
Or maybe she was simply offered relocation in the state’s Witness Protection Program? You have a crooked state judicial system. You have crooked law enforcement. Both work hand in hand. What better way to eliminate someone (without murdering them) than to coerce them to accept relocation under the strict guidelines of the Witness Protection Program. And under the law, no attorney or investigator can legally expose any participants in the program. She is safe from exposure ― even if she is discovered!
But where could she have gone? Anywhere in the country. Or anywhere out of the country. Out of the country is less than a day’s journey. Maybe she even took her own green/teal RAV4, which would be why they had to substitute another vehicle. Or maybe she abandoned that vehicle on the Highway 147 turnabout where her vehicle was last spotted (parked and presumably investigated by law enforcement, which would explain why Colborn called in the plates long before the blue RAV4 is planted)?
Maybe she then ended up in the local mental facility, drugged to the point of not being able to make rational decisions on her own. Or maybe she wasn’t drugged but was just a special “guest” there until arrangements for her relocation could be made. The possibilities are endless.
http://ernestlmartin.com/avery/THE%20STEVEN%20AVERY%20CASE%20-%20SOLVED.pdf
http://ernestlmartin.com/avery/WHY%20NO%20ONE%20IS%20UNDERSTANDING%20THE%20STEVEN%20AVERY%20CASE.pdf
[–]MMonroe54
> If the lab processed the car properly, the DNA under the hood should have been discovered the first time around.
Absolutely. And if LE hadn't disconnected the battery, they would have included "under the hood" in their process.
If they didn't "need" the DNA under the hood, they wouldn't have bothered with it at all.
Did they think the defense was going to ask to investigate under the hood, find something there that shouldn't be there if SA did it?
Did they think the defense was going to ask to investigate under the hood, find something there that shouldn't be there if SA did it?
Claiming something is not proving something...and they were always thinking of the jury, who they know are convinced/impressed by "proof" or scientific evidence. They dropped the rape and kidnapping charges because they had no proof.
[-] magiclougie
> Did they think the defense was going to ask to investigate under the hood, find something there that shouldn't be there if SA did it?
Yep, the wrong size Interstate MT-58 battery from the MTSO maintenance garage or undersheriff Hermann's salvage yard.
[-] magiclougie
> Did they think the defense was going to ask to investigate under the hood, find something there that shouldn't be there if SA did it?
Yep, the wrong size Interstate MT-58 battery from the MTSO maintenance garage or undersheriff Hermann's salvage yard.
[–]Henbury
> But if they didn't "need" the DNA under the hood, why bother with it at all?
This is my point.
I consider that in their mind, DNA evidence is "beyond reasonable doubt" to a jury, so that's why the DNA evidence gets planted.
But they had already established DNA evidence (blood) tying SA to the car. And if they'd planted DNA on the hood latch from the start, they would have swabbed it, or encouraged an unknowing lab tech to swab it, the first time the car was processed, to crystalise the forensic case from the beginning.
The hood latch DNA was planted later. But why?
Two theories have evolved -
(1) to establish an alternate source of DNA in case the blood evidence got thrown out or
(2) it placed SA under the hood, presumably disconnecting the battery.
Two theories have evolved -
(1) to establish an alternate source of DNA in case the blood evidence got thrown out or
(2) it placed SA under the hood, presumably disconnecting the battery.
I don't buy the theory that they had to plant an alternate source of DNA on the car tying it to SA in case the blood got thrown out; they could have planted it anywhere in or on the car (ideally somewhere documented as not swabbed when it was first processed). So why the hood latch, specifically?
It was such a risk to plant additional DNA that was inconsistent with previous samples and findings ('sweat' vs blood), months after the car had already been processed. I think they actually ran a higher risk having the 'sweat' DNA thrown out than they did the blood (by both the delay to discover it and forensically). So why take that risk? What was so important about the hood latch?
Placing SA under the hood, beyond reasonable doubt, solves the problem of the disconnected battery.
To disconnect the battery requires handling the hood latch, which can only be done by handling the hood release in the car interior. That requires being inside the vehicle.
I don't accept that the battery was disconnected at the lab. A LEO following protocol, or wanting to ensure their planted evidence survived the trip to the lab, would disconnect the battery.
Admitting LEO disconnected the battery would lead to a line of inquiry establishing that they were in the vehicle when they shouldn't have been. That casts doubt on evidence collection, and (since they already had motive) gives them the opportunity to plant the evidence that was found when the car was first processed.
Was the RAV on an open trailer or inside an enclosed one?
Not impossible, but logistically a lot of effort to open the hood and disconnect the battery in an enclosed trailer. They would also need a reason to check?
By the same logic, not impossible but logistically a lot of effort to achieve anything nefarious in an enclosed trailer.
[–]Henbury
I'm a believer in lies having a grain of truth. In the circumstances, if innocent, LE were looking for ways to discover evidence that was consistent with their real life findings.
For example, I think in real life the discovery of blood in the Grand Am and/or the cut on SA would predate the 'discovery' of physical blood in the RAV4.
They took inspiration from a real life event and made it plausible in a lie.
They took inspiration from a real life event and made it plausible in a lie.
I wonder whether they discovered something under the hood, about a person or DNA, that wasn't SA's and wasn't meant to be there?
Like I said about the rape, an actual crime, they claimed it without physical evidence.
Like I said about the rape, an actual crime, they claimed it without physical evidence.
Really, why under the hood, and why DNA?
[-] magiclougie
> I wonder whether they discovered something under the hood, about a person or DNA, that wasn't SA's and wasn't meant to be there?
They were made aware of photographs documenting that the planters (specifically, Colborn) placed an Interstate MT-58 battery from a Crown Victoria into the RAV4 before it was driven from the turnaround on Highway 147 to ASY.
[–]Henbury
> But if the battery cables had been disconnected per protocol, as the Degnitz memo **strongly** suggests, that means that there was a very ordinary reason for why the cables were disconnected, and one they knew about.
But the prosecution narrative was that SA disconnected the battery. That means no LEO admitted they did it, nor can they admit it now.
They can't come back from that. It means that there is no ordinary reason why the battery was disconnected (by them).
It must have been true that the vehicle was 'discovered' at ASY with the battery disconnected.
So again, I ask, if innocent, why go to such trouble to point to SA doing it? They could have just claimed it without physical evidence like the rape.
I think we all understand the suggestion is that someone who is not SA disconnected the battery...
So again, I ask, if innocent, why go to such trouble to point to SA doing it? They could have just claimed it without physical evidence like the rape.
I think we all understand the suggestion is that someone who is not SA disconnected the battery...
[–]ms_brabant[S]
Actually, no one ever said that it was SA who disconnected the battery cables. The prosecution never contends this, so it's not actually part of the narrative. What they do is cleverly imply that he must have because his DNA is found on the hood latch.
[–]s_wardy_s
My belief is the presence of someone else was found under the hood, and this needed to be covered up at any length.
We talked about on the old MaM sub over two years ago, and the general consensus was that items that would have identified a third person (such as the person who moved the car onto the lot or the "real killer") were not actually tested or could have been covered up.
And KZ being super cluey, did request some of those items to be tested.
And KZ being super cluey, did request some of those items to be tested.
I don't have a list of the items in front of me but how does one get under the hood without first popping it from the inside the car? Was the hood release tested? I know she asked for the lug wrench, and seat adjuster to be tested, along with other stuff.
[-] magiclougie
Zellner's expert does several experiments and contends the following:
- the blood spatter found in the RAV was selectively planted and that there would have been blood in many more places if he was actively bleeding.
- they did experiments with Steven with blood on his finger to show that it would have also been deposited on the outside door handle, key, key ring, steering wheel, gear shift lever, brake lever, battery cables, and hood prop instead of just the six places it was found.
The Latest ruling by Judge A. S. argues:
No communication was made to the court indicating that the original motion was incomplete and would be supplemented with further information. Only after the court fully considered the evidence submitted and issued its final ruling did the defense finally alert the court to the fact that it was working on further evidence to support its arguments.
This July 14, 2017 letter appears to contradict that statement, when it states the following at the bottom of page 1 and the top of page 2:
The parties [the state and the defense], in their communication, agreed that the testing would be done in stages and, depending upon the outcome of the testing, further testing could be done on additional items of evidence delineated in Mr. Avery’s motion for scientific testing. Certain items of evidence have not been release for examination and retesting. They are summarized as follows:
“New DNA testing on evidence not previously tested (the prop, the battery cable, the interior hood release of the victim’s vehicle, the blinker light, the lug wrench, and the purple thong underwear).” (Motion for Scientific Testing, p. 14);
“New and improved DNA testing of previously tested items (the license plates and swabs taken from the victim’s car)” (Id.);
DNA testing on burnt material found at the Radiant deer hunting camp west of the Avery salvage yard to determine whether there are any items of evidentiary value at the deer camp. (Id., p. 22).
A comparison of the fingerprints of Sergeant Andrew Coburn and Lieutenant James Lenk to unidentified prints on victim’s vehicle. (Id., p. 42).
Examination of the victim’s vehicle. (Id. pp. 21-22);
Swabs from stains on the floor of Mr. Avery’s garage, his bathroom, and his trailer. (Id., p. 31-32);
Swabs from stains in Mr. Avery’s vehicle. (Id., pp. 37-38); and
Unspent .22 LR ammunition recovered in Mr. Avery’s trailer. (Id., p. 41).
[–]Henbury
The Carfax report says Teresa purchased the RAV4 in August 2003.
In Exhibit 192, the MT-58 battery cover is stamped “J4” which means the battery was manufactured in October 2004 (J = 10th month, 4 = ‘04).
Teresa’s purchase of the vehicle pre-dates the manufacture of the MT-58 battery. It was not already installed when she bought the car.
[–]7-pairs-of-panties
Battery may have been stolen out of the car as it sat abandoned for 3 1/2 days at the turnaround. When somebody needed to move the car they couldn’t cause no battery. Easier to replace the battery than to have the RAV towed -- that would have caused too much of a scene.
[–]Slinkydonko
The car was made in 99, the battery was made in 2004, her car history shows she got wiper blades replaced, nothing about battery.
[–]idunno_why
Tracking down a battery for a fleet car is probably easier than tracking to an individual ....parts and service records being kept and all.
The county garage probably orders batteries in bulk and maybe they even have consecutive serial/production numbers on the lot of them.
The county garage probably orders batteries in bulk and maybe they even have consecutive serial/production numbers on the lot of them.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
Easier yet, it can be traced to were it was shipped and who the warranty was under.
Fleet batteries are the easiest to trace, since it's a business to business shipment. Conversely, those purchased at retail locations are just punched and the person is expected to keep the receipt.
The battery is clearly a fleet battery as evident by the 4 not being punched and the "J4" indicating the battery was manufactured.
Keep in mind it's not like Manitowoc County WI is Los Angeles County CA. Interstate isn't going to be shipping to many fleets in Manitowoc County. Subsequently, making it very easy for KZ to trace via Interstate.
[–]columbomumbojumbo
I had to register my Interstate Battery for the warranty.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
Yup, the battery can be traced to shipping location and if registered for warranty to a name.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
I went after the 04', instead of the 99', given a witness claiming he saw a white Jeep following the RAV4. The search revealed both use group size 24. It was during the process of that search that I found that Crown Vics used a group size 58.
That is the group size number of the battery found in TH's RAV4. The battery that was suppose to be in her car was group size 35.
First, I've spent countless hours reviewing the case file. I know the case file like the back of my hand but I truly can't recall what was and was not in the documentary.
While I was reviewing the photo Exhibits there were a number of photos that struck me as odd. Exhibit 302 was one such photo therein I noticed the battery found in TH's vehicle didn't fit her car:
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Exhibit-302-RAV4-Battery-Disconnected.jpg
You will notice within the Exhibit the battery doesn't fit under the battery hold down. As result, if TH drove her car with that battery as soon as she took a turn at speed it would have slid causing its positive terminal to make contact with the metal hold down bracket. As result of the bracket being a solid ground, the battery would have shorted and caught fire.
When I first started my search, I was using a part store's website which required me to know the vehicle in advance. I kept just trying different vehicles looking for a match, but that was very hit & miss. Subsequently, I began looking for a way to find all vehicles that used that size battery.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
The battery found in the car has a lower cold cranking amperage therefore it's only larger in size. The battery is nearly 2" shorter (1.975" to be exact) therefore it has plenty of room for the battery to move. The battery cables, which are stranded core to reduce resistance, would not hold the battery in place due to physics. The battery has more mass than the battery cables thereby at velocity, when the vehicle takes a turn, the battery will generate more force the cables. Additionally, the cables connect the battery to the engine (postive to starter, negative to engine itself as a ground) Therefore, the forces being generated by the cables are in the same direction as the battery's thereby the cables only assist the battery to move when the vehicle turns right. .
There are four factors when jumping a vehicle:
1) Does the person have jumper cables.
2) How drained is the battery.
3) Does the jumping vehicles's alternator generate enough amperage to charge both batteries.
2) How drained is the battery.
3) Does the jumping vehicles's alternator generate enough amperage to charge both batteries.
4) Can the jumper cable's wire gauge handle the amperage needed without melting.
The second and third go together, if the vehicle battery is completely drained than jumping vehicle's RPM has to be brought up then retained to allow the jump vehicle's alternator to charge the other vehicle's.
The fastest and most reliable way to get a car with a dead battery going again is to replace its battery.
[-] SBRH33
> For instance is pretty common to swap out 58 for 34. You can theoretically use any battery, the standards exist for a reason, fit in housing, posts not touching hood, etc
This is completely wrong. I'm not going to debate this.
Teresa's RAV4 had the wrong size battery installed period. It was way too much amperage for that Toyota model period.
It doesn't matter if it fit in the cabin tray.
Toyota, Honda and Suburau are tech sticklers for correct battery size in their vehicles for a host of reasons related to the complex proprietary electrical components of these vehicles.
Any person who can use Google can easily figure this out. For instance:
https://itstillruns.com/problems-using-large-auto-battery-7449907.html
The RAV4 having that size INTERSTATE BATTERY in place at the time of its discovery IMO is a high value clue.
Whoever put that battery in there did it out of quick necessity.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
You are correct and the other user seems to just pulling information out of their backside. It would be incredibility stupid to replace a group size 34 with a 58, since the 58 isn't as tall thereby it will slide around. If the battery mount is the same as in TH's RAV4, the positive terminal would slide right into the mounting bracket. To claim people commonly replace a 34 with 58, as the other user is claiming, is pure absurdity.
[–]SBRH33
It is very difficult to buy the wrong size battery.
For starters you have to bring your old battery to the -Point Of Purchase to receive the CORE REFUND
All stores have on location the sizing books outlining the battery sizes for all make and model vehicles.
A shop would never place the wrong size battery in a vehicle.
It is true a vehicle will run with any size battery in the tray. But it will suffer electrical damages no doubt.
Someone put that oversized Interstate battery in the RAV4 out of quick necessity.
[–]SBRH33
Everyone is an expert huh. Sounds familiar.
Listen, its simple. The battery that was discovered in the RAV4 was completely the wrong battery period. That battery does not even come close to the OEM designation for that Toyota model vehicle.
A shop would never make that mistake.
No reason for a consumer to make that mistake since the sizing charts are available right where you would select the battery for your car.
The battery purchase is backed up at the Point Of Purchase. If one bought the battery at say a Pep Boys, Autozone or any auto parts dealer in the states, there is a thing called a CORE CHARGE. Its connected to the store UPC Code on the battery. So you bring your old battery in and accidentally buy the wrong size battery... the UPC code at the POP would recognize that the CORE CHARGE is different and it would alert the cashier that the wrong size battery was selected. The very nice store associate would then fetch the correct battery and you would be on your way.
The battery size is directly stickered and stamped on the battery. It is as simple as selecting the same exact battery from the shelf as the battery in the car.
There are so many stop gaps from selecting the incorrect battery for your car its hilarious.
So how did the completely wrong size battery get placed in the RAV4?
Come to think of it, why didn't investigators trace back the battery purchase? I am sure the UPC was still on the battery somewhere. Ah Shucks, just another investigative avenue ignored.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
12 volt car batteries are more common, but older cars used 6 volt batteries. Why you didn't bother to check if the battery fit before buying seems foolish. First, because there are 79 different battery sizes. Second, because there are 5 different terminal sizes. Third, because there are reverse terminal batteries.
Failure to buy the correct size battery results in the following:
Failure to buy the correct size battery results in the following:
1) The battery not fitting in the battery tray.
2) The battery not fitting the battery mounts.
3) The car battery cable not fitting the battery terminals.
4) The car's battery cables not being long enough to connect the battery
Why would you spend the money for a new battery without knowing if fit your car?
Reverse post batteries are denoted with an "R" at the end. There is a 58R, as well as 58, but no 35R just a 35. TH's RAV4 took a 35 versus a Crown Vic took a 58 thereby neither used reverse post batteries.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/4obrkn/mt58_battery_has_wrong_negativepositive_post/
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
My point is the battery found in TH's car doesn't fit as evident by Exhibit 302. As result over being nearly 2" shorter, the battery would have slid causing it positive terminal to ground to the metal bracket as soon as TH took a right turn at speed. Thus, TH could not have been driving around with the battery found in her car.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
I traced it down after noticing it didn't fit under the hold down:
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Exhibit-302-RAV4-Battery-Disconnected.jpg
I wracked my brain out, for about a year, trying to find what vehicles it fit using a part's store website. The week before last I obtained access to the Battery Council International (BCI) data thereby allowing me to do reverse lookup by BCI number. To my pleasant surprise, very few vehicles use group size 58 and to my delight the MTSO's Crown Vics did :)
It's a small world after all Andy..... (self.TickTockManitowoc)
by CaseFilesReviewer
November 6, 2018
I finally found a source that allowed reverse lookup on BCI (Battery Counsel International) Group Size to be performed. To my surprise & delight, very few vehicles use a group size 58 thereby the MT-58 only fits the following vehicles:
Ford Crown Victoria
Ford T-Bird
Ford Tempo
Jeep Wrangler
Kia Sportage
Mazda B2000
I knew it fit Jeep Wrangers, but not of Crown Vics. Crown Vics, of course, are commonly used in Law Enforcement as demonstrated by the photo within the article linked below:
http://www.wssociety.co.uk/features/2016/4/13/junkyard-justice
[–]subzero0000
HOLY SHIT!!! She has legitimately tracked that battery down to a police car?
[–]The_Reliant
Hard to say for sure, but the fact she has traced who the battery came from, plus her comments on it being the type for a Crown Vic (police style car back in those days, some now), is what is big. Being the type of battery for a Crown Victoria on its own isn't as solid, as it can also be the battery for other make and model cars as well, but including Crown Vic.
I don't think she would have mentioned it being similar to a Crown Vic battery if she knew it came off of some random old car out in the salvage yard etc...
I think she's slow playing this person who changed/owned the battery, encouraging them to come forward and tell more of the story than she'd probably get if she were to spill it all out.
[-] finfangfark
My thoughts as well.
Trying to smoke them out to see what potential conflicting stories they tell.
[-] hnfhelper
The only picture of the battery I have seen looks intentionally cropped to not reveal the entire label on the battery.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer[S]
She likely has better photos than what were used as Exhibits.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer[S]
The battery was less than a year old when found and KZ has already traced the warranty information. The State can say whatever they want but warranty holder is the warranty holder and given the battery is from a Crown Vic, the holder is more than likely the County's Garage.
I don't know if they keep track of what specific battery was installed or removed. I did know it's standard operating procedure for a county garage to send in the warranty information.
The battery was purchased within the year by the "J4" stamped on it. The "J4" means it was manufactured in October 2004 (J is the 10th letter of the alphabet thereby indicates October and the 4 is the last digit of year). It would have been purchased within the year, since October 2004 was when it was made, not purchased.
[–]OhioBigMac
My gut with this is that she is indirectly implicating the Manty Popo in the planting of the Rav in the salvage yard. If the Rav was left at the turnaround like Zellner believes, it would have been done in a hurry. Maybe the key was left on in the rush. Maybe a door was cracked and the dome light was on. Lots of reasons the battery could be dead when Colburn rolls up on it. An obvious source for a replacement could be to call in a favor from a buddy in the Manty maintenance group. Especially if the idea and opportunity of framing Avery popped into your head and you were already thinking forward about how to cover your tracks. Too bad for Colburn that he didn’t have the foresight to think about the damn battery warranty and all the worldwide attention the case would have. This scenario has me thinking about the key. I’ll bet anything the key set TH used was in that ignition and I’ll bet our buddy Colburn knows exactly where he disposed of them. That’s one guy I know who would never voluntarily subject himself to brain fingerprinting lol. Fucking dirty bastard.
[–]now_biff
What say the battery had been stolen out of what appeared to be an abandoned SUV on the side of the road. That’s a fairly common thing to happen to dumped cars no question, Things get picked off it by the buzzards. So then, when Colburn rolls up on it after the tip off, say he finds it with the keys still in it but when it won’t start finds the battery missing. So he can’t be seen there jumping it, he can’t even be seen to have discovered it by a passing motorist, so definitely no time to boost it off another car. The only thing he can do is chuck another battery in there to get it going. Maybe he disconnects the cables when he’s about to enter the ASY so that the brake lights won’t function and draw attention to it, explaining why they weren’t connected. After planting it, the moron failed to get the battery back because he was preoccupied with camouflaging the vehicle.
[–]now_biff
What say the battery had been stolen out of what appeared to be an abandoned SUV on the side of the road. That’s a fairly common thing to happen to dumped cars no question, Things get picked off it by the buzzards. So then, when Colburn rolls up on it after the tip off, say he finds it with the keys still in it but when it won’t start finds the battery missing. So he can’t be seen there jumping it, he can’t even be seen to have discovered it by a passing motorist, so definitely no time to boost it off another car. The only thing he can do is chuck another battery in there to get it going. Maybe he disconnects the cables when he’s about to enter the ASY so that the brake lights won’t function and draw attention to it, explaining why they weren’t connected. After planting it, the moron failed to get the battery back because he was preoccupied with camouflaging the vehicle.
[-] magiclougie
A replacement battery was needed because the RAV battery was dead or missing. If the key had been left in the ignition, that would explain the dead battery.
On 11/4, out of quick necessity, Andy put in a battery from MTSO's maintenance garage or undersheriff Hermann's salvage yard so that the RAV could be driven from the turnaround to ASY. He had to dispose of Teresa set of keys after the RAV was driven to ASY because of the risk for his DNA being detected on them (they couldn't scrub her entire key chain of DNA without looking it suspicious, but they took the chance with the valet key and planting Steven's DNA on the single scrubbed key).
Around 8 PM on 11/4, as he left for Crivitz, Chuck spotted headlights in the area in the pit where Colborn was planting the RAV. Chuck called Steven, who, along with Bobby, drove down into the pit to check it out, at which time Colborn had to abort his mission and leave the replacement battery in the RAV. He had removed one of the cables but hadn't gotten to the second cable when Steven and Bobby came driving into the pit.
On 11/4, out of quick necessity, Andy put in a battery from MTSO's maintenance garage or undersheriff Hermann's salvage yard so that the RAV could be driven from the turnaround to ASY. He had to dispose of Teresa set of keys after the RAV was driven to ASY because of the risk for his DNA being detected on them (they couldn't scrub her entire key chain of DNA without looking it suspicious, but they took the chance with the valet key and planting Steven's DNA on the single scrubbed key).
Around 8 PM on 11/4, as he left for Crivitz, Chuck spotted headlights in the area in the pit where Colborn was planting the RAV. Chuck called Steven, who, along with Bobby, drove down into the pit to check it out, at which time Colborn had to abort his mission and leave the replacement battery in the RAV. He had removed one of the cables but hadn't gotten to the second cable when Steven and Bobby came driving into the pit.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer[S]
I'm sure that SOB planted the car.
The car was seen parked along 147 the evening the 31st and the day of 3rd & 4th. I a person didn't shut a door all the way it's battery would die of the course of 4.5 days.
I forgot to add leaving the key in the on or acc position will drain a battery fast and that's something I learned the hard way...lol.
The car was seen parked along 147 the evening the 31st and the day of 3rd & 4th. I a person didn't shut a door all the way it's battery would die of the course of 4.5 days.
I forgot to add leaving the key in the on or acc position will drain a battery fast and that's something I learned the hard way...lol.
[–]_jcr_
I still think the blood was planted after the car was placed on ASY. All of the blood is located on the side of the car that was accessible in the location it was parked, except for the blood on the ignition area. And, wouldn't you know it, there are flakes on the floor around that area. To me, that sounds like it was hard to reach and some dried flakes dropped when the planter was trying to reach the ignition area from the passenger side. Plus I think the location and shape of the blood around the ignition is above BoD and ST's intelligence level.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer[S]
I believe she's just working with what she has relative to the blood. When she able to get access to the RAV4 she will be able to collect larger samples that will allow the source to be proven.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer[S]
I think they just threw in whatever they had laying around and didn't realize a battery can be traced.
I suspect she will include the name in her December filing. She may file sooner but I doubt it.
If I was KZ I'd stick with the December date to push the ruling into when the AG is out. I suspect the AG's Assistant AG Fallon will also be gone come the beginning of the year thereby giving KZ a clean slate.
[–]CuriousMeeee
Who noticed it was the wrong size battery? Someone on here? I can’t remember.
Was that you OP?
[–]CaseFilesReviewer[S]
I believe it was me. I noticed a while back, before I created my new account, but I had only connected to a Jeep using a part's store website. It wasn't until last week that I gained access to the Battery Council International data to do a reverse lookup and find it fit a Crown Vic. Also, to my surprise, it's not use in many vehicles.
The battery is nearly 2" shorter (1.973" to be exact) thereby it would have moved back & forth under the battery mount:
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Exhibit-302-RAV4-Battery-Disconnected.jpg
The last thing TH had done was she got the windshield wipers replaced:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/oph7ry42kv0r695/CARFAX%20Vehicle%20History%20Report%20TH%201999%20TOYOTA%20RAV4_%20JT3HP10V5X7113044.pdf?dl=0
[–]Lord-CATalog
Everyone seems to forget that they were two separate framing jobs happening at the same time: one by the killer and his helper and the other one by the corrupt LE. That's why the evidence seems so distant and with different mo.
[–]SparePattern
I’ve been thinking the same for awhile. I was pretty confident LE didn’t actually murder anyone (but to be honest, with this group I wouldn’t at all be surprised), and figured the real killer would try to independently cover their own tracks, then LE rolls in with their patch job. And that’s why nothing matches up, everything is disjointed, etc. I literally hear Benny Hill music in my head when I think of the chaos simultaneously going on with this sometimes. Obviously none of this is funny but the parallel cover ups, framing, sloppiness is quite something and actually helped both sides get away with it - for awhile anyway...
[–]DrCarlSpackler
There was an effort to disconnect or remove the battery that was aborted after the car was driven in to the ASY.
I have always believed it likely the planting of the Rav was a result of LE's tunnel vision to "spruce up" the evidence to hasten Avery's arrest.
If that battery belonged to a police Interceptor, there would be maintenance logs for the replacement battery that will dramatically narrow down the donor vehicle. Corroborated with the time-line and you have an ever decreasing pool of potential planters.
I think KZ intends to smoke out the planter of the Rav because she has records of the handful of interceptors that might have been the donor.
The Rav was driven in.
Headlights observed.
Witness saw two vehicles.
The Rav was parked too tight not to have driven under it's own power and there was no room or evidence that it was winched from the front.
Therefore the battery was connected on evening of the 4th and the Rav was not towed into the ASY.
This only leaves the planter of the Rav as the only person under the hood on the evening of the 4th near crusher row.
This only leaves the planter of the Rav as the only person under the hood on the evening of the 4th near crusher row.
If the battery is from an Interceptor, it would be missed. The planter risked contaminating the scene at night trying to work on the car under pressure. If the battery was meant to be removed while Chuck and Steve were looking for lights, a person might end up rushing.
And why would Avery give a crap about the battery if he had the key? He would not feel any rush because he lived there and presumably had 5 days to deal with the Rav...if you believe the State's story that Rav never left the ASY. In arguendo, Avery would not incapacitate a car so close to his house if guilty: he would want to move the car of a murdered girl far away, if involved.
If the flyovers were really done to scout out a hiding spot for the Rav, then the dry labbing is to fix the mistake of the rushed job after the fact. KZ believes dry-labbing of the latch-licking/groin rubbing under the hood occurred. The obvious misdirect through controlling the investigation seems calculated to point to Avery despite any articulate reason
It sure looks like the MTSO was omniscient about what and where they would find.
"Pagel and the new girl (Baldwin)..."
The afternoon of the fourth.
The raw footage has never been obtained and the shaky video debatedly shows that the Rav was not there daylight on the fourth.
I think the flyover footage was short-changed by Ken's strategy of using sparse exhibits that were calculated to cast a wide net by omitting any refutable details.
Examples: The typed up call details instead of the Cingular paperwork, the admonishment of Culhane to avoid being too technical for the jury, the one-off EDTA test lacking the detail to meet Daubert et seq, & etc.
The utter lack of specific wrongdoing by Avery left little to refute. Ken's arguments mutated yet always came back to the refrain of "Killer SA" despite conflict. Ken had a talent for keeping specifics vague and using the momentum of the office to lull juries into not questioning the State's conclusionary aspersions.
[–]Fedupwiththelaw
I think it's smart for KZ to not expressly claim the police planted the blood, and to underline it's POSSIBLE that the killer did, as he had access to car, SA's trailer, etc.
BoD doing it is feasible, even if unlikely.
Why go out on a limb and claim the cops did it, just turning people on the fence off who want to believe that cops are inherently good?
BoD doing it is feasible, even if unlikely.
Why go out on a limb and claim the cops did it, just turning people on the fence off who want to believe that cops are inherently good?
The police very well may have (and likely did) plant the blood (they sure used the "destroyed" crotch swabs on the hood latch to great effect).
But by focusing her theory clearly on the killer, she leaves the accusations of police corruption and planting to bubble up to the surface all by themselves.
But by focusing her theory clearly on the killer, she leaves the accusations of police corruption and planting to bubble up to the surface all by themselves.
The whole subtext for police incompetence--or outright corruption--is right there in her argument where she alleges the killer planted the blood:
Best case for the cops with the story as told by KZ? They screwed up the investigation and missed getting who it really was in their zeal to nail SA...and may even have used the killer as their star witness to do so.
Worst case? They strongly suspected, or even outright knew who the real killer was and agreed to work with him to put SA behind bars.
Either way, SA's innocent.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer[S]
Crown Victorias were used by the MTSO before they moved to Chevy Impalas.
[–]JLWhitaker
Do you know when they switched and who would have had access to the older vehicles that were going to be replaced?
What if there was a triple switch? Hey, Charlie, I need a new battery for my car, can I get one from the yard?
It's a stretch, I know. Am just thinking outside the square for why anyone would think this was a smart thing to do. Oh, right. Andy. Never mind.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer[S]
It was right around the time of murder, since their newer cars were Impalas and their older one's Crown Vics.
My guess is the battery was sitting in the county garage after being removed from a car taken out of service.
Wrecked or major mechanical not worth fixing. That's what our county garage does with something come out of service. They park it around back, take it's battery out and store inside, then then pick the car for parts.
Back in 05' the MTSO was cycling out their Crown Vics, replacing them with Chevy Impalas, and if they had a Crown Vic not worth fixing they would have just decommissioned it.
That actually threw me off when I was first looking, since the MTSO's patrol cars in the photo exhibits where Impalas. After I found the battery fit a Crown Vic I once again searched and found media coverage that showed the MTSO's older patrol cars were Crown Vics.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer[S]
Wrecked or major mechanical not worth fixing. That's what our county garage does with something come out of service. They park it around back, take it's battery out and store inside, then then pick the car for parts.
Back in 05' the MTSO was cycling out their Crown Vics, replacing them with Chevy Impalas, and if they had a Crown Vic not worth fixing they would have just decommissioned it.
That actually threw me off when I was first looking, since the MTSO's patrol cars in the photo exhibits where Impalas. After I found the battery fit a Crown Vic I once again searched and found media coverage that showed the MTSO's older patrol cars were Crown Vics.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer[S]
She specifically referenced Crown Vic, so I believe it traced back to the County's Garage as I suspected.
[–]screamcleaning
I just got in from work and have only done a quick scroll through the new info. If I am not mistaken the battery replacement/crown vic battery has been your theory for quite awhile, correct? Love reading your posts and laughed in delight when I saw that one of the major things coming out today was something you had been saying for quite awhile!
[–]CaseFilesReviewer[S]
Replacement yes, but I wasn't able to connect to the Crown Vic until the week before last.
Battery Disconnected - WHY? (self.TickTockManitowoc)
by UnrelatedComet
I know this has been discussed before but I still haven't seen a viable explanation as to why Steven supposedly disconnected the negative battery terminal.
It makes sense that on a salvage yard you would remove the battery before crushing - but why disable a perfectly good car from starting so far away from the crusher itself when you could just eventually drive it there, and why would he want it disabled in case he needed to move it quickly?
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/9qpjv7/battery_disconnected_why/
While O'Neill is questioning Brendan, Degnitz walks over to ask O'Neill a question:
While O'Neill is questioning Brendan, Degnitz walks over to ask O'Neill a question:
Det. Degnitz: You got some kind of MEMO that if it's inside it's supposed to have the battery disconnected?
Det. O'Neill: Yeah, I wouldn't.....glove up is all
Det. Degnitz: Yeah. Alright....
Det. O'Neill: Before he let's it totally lose, give it a hi...a hi look. Give it a hi look underneath
Det. Degnitz: Make sure there are no parts under there?
Det. O'Neill: Yeah
Det. Degnitz: Okay, I thought thought you were going to crawl under it
Det. O'Neill: Yeah (laugh)
The memo that Degnitz was referring to was sent out between November 5th and November 6th by someone working for the Wisconsin State Crime to ensure that the vehicles they were about to seize were handled according to established protocol. Crivitz is a very small town, and the officials from the crime lab wanted to make sure that potentially inexperienced law enforcement officers unaccustomed to working big cases didn't contaminate evidence.
Who unhooked the battery cables? (self.TickTockManitowoc)
by ms_brabant
Sorry if this has already been chewed on, but I caught something that I thought interesting while reading through the transcript of the interrogation between Brendan Dassey and Anthony O'Neill on November 6th, 2005.
It is not what is said between O'Neill and Brendan that I find interesting, but a brief, seemingly unremarkable comment made by another officer attending the scene that makes me question a key piece of evidence brought forward by the prosecution.
Just for a little background for those who don't know or might have forgotten, this interview of Brendan Dassey was done in Crivitz on Nov. 6th, the day after he'd driven up with SA in his blue Pontiac Grand Am. for a family get-together
Apparently, a warrant, requested by Wisconsin Department of Criminal Investigation Agent Kim Skorlinski had been granted, allowing law enforcement to seize the Pontiac Grand Am in order to collect it as evidence. In consequence, piecing together from this documents, there was an all-points-bulletin put out for it in Crivitz to locate the Pontiac Grand Am, and then to bring it in as evidence.
So, on the 6th of November, BD and his brother Bryan are driving around the town of Crivitz in the Pontiac Grand Am when they are stopped by Deputy Degnitz. Deputy Degnitz then calls O'Neill, Baldwin, and Skorlinski to arrive at the scene to question the Dassey brothers. When the others arrive to join O'Neill, including Department of Criminal Investigation Agent Kim Skorlinsk, Brendan is brought into O'Neill's police cruiser, and his questioning begins. (It is not at all clear where Bryan is.) O'Neill is not joined by Deputy Degnitz, who stays in or around his own vehicle as he call Witts Towing to coordinate having SAs Grand Am brought in to the Crivitz PD for examination.
All of this can be found in O'Neill's written report
But it's on page 12 of the transcript of the actual audio-recorded conversation that Degnitz says something interesting as he approaches O'Neill's cruiser to ask him something about a memo:
Deputy Degnitz: You've got some kind of memo that if it's inside it's supposed to have the battery disconnected.....
Battery disconnected? A memo?
Given the presence of Kim Skorlinski, it is evident that the Wisconsin State Office of Criminal Invetigation—under which the WI Crime Lab would be a part—would
A) have, as an established protocol, that battery cables be disconnected on vehicles brought in for evidence, and;
B) work closely with and given guidance to local police departments.
If the memo in question was sent out by the WI Crime lab (possibly on the 5th?) then most assuredly they followed their own protocol when the RAV4 was brought in the evening of the 5th?
What I'm really getting at is that it seems far more likely that the crime lab disconnected the battery cables than the killer (who would have had no reason to). IF this is so, there should have been no reason for SAs DNA to end up on the hood latch.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
It's common for a tow person to disconnect the battery thereby I didn't give it a second thought.
Here are my thoughts on the battery:
What Exhibit 302 tell us: TH's car battery died and someone replaced it with whatever they had. The correct Interstate battery for TH would be a MT-35, which is sizing group 35, and the MT-58 size group 58 doesn't fit under the RAV4's hold-down.
TH drove her car to GZ's, SA's, and SS's; therefore, it was not dead when she made those stops. So, the battery died some point after those stops.
The battery's manufacturing code is "J" which means October ( J is 10th letter of the alphabet). The battery's year code is "4" which means 2004. So, the batter is telling us it had been purchased within the 12 months prior thereby relatively new thereby not junk. A relatively new battery hold value thereby someone selling used car parts would have taken it to sell and thrown a crap batter in.
Tracing the battery in TH's car: Hopefully, KZ's team had Interstate trace the battery by SN, since a county would have explaining to to do it it traced back to the County's garage. If it was registered for warranty then name of the battery owner is known by Interstate. If it wasn't registered Interstate can trace it to shipping destination.
Trace by size group revealed it did not fit any of the county vehicles pictured. It may fit others not pictured, and it does fit a Jeep Wrangler.
Trace by size group revealed it did not fit any of the county vehicles pictured. It may fit others not pictured, and it does fit a Jeep Wrangler.
[–]JLWhitaker
Have you shared this expert information with KZ's team? I wouldn't bet that anyone would know that battery information is traceable. There isn't anything in her carfax report that a battery was replaced.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
Honestly, I completely forgot about it until I read the last post. So, in answer to your question I've not.
Feel free to pass it a long, I'd do myself but my good laptop died and this one's keyboard & Wifi sucks (It drops internet every 15 - 30 seconds)
As far as Carfax, it would only show major repairs (I believe a grand or more) if reported.
[–]JLWhitaker
LOL - Carfax includes wiper blade changes on this car!
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
Well I'll be, that's surprising. She must gone to the dealer for everything, which furthers my suspicion as to why there should be an MT-58 in it.
BTW - Thanks for forwarding the info. I swear for every key typed on this stupid keyboard only half come up :(
[–]IceCreamCake307
When did she buy the RAV?
[–]JLWhitaker
April 2003. It was a 1999 model.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
The battery tracing was sent to KZ, along with the correct battery for TH's vehicle and the battery fitting a Jeep Wranger.
Also sent was a reverse phone lookup & name information that identified BoD had called locations where kids the exact ages he specified in his porn searches.
What I did, using BoD cell records, was reverse search on each number. The search results returns who the phone was registered, their address, all their relatives & neighbors, and each persons current age. I then searched reached relative to determine who lived in the same household of the number called. I then used their current age & birthdays to determine what age they were when the call was placed. The result of the search was the finding that within each residence called was a child that matched the age BoD had searched. What made the finding startling was the exactness whereby for each number was child of the exact age. I very few cases was there anyone within the household near BoD's age. Instead, they were either much older (the parents) or kids 16 and below.
Also sent was Cellular Data Analysis that identified the routes TH had traveled that day.
I don't recall, I suspect not, the information on how it's known the witness lied on the stand about how TH's car was moved. The witness testified they crawled under TH's car, and after being unable to reach its shift linkage, they unbolted its front drive shaft. How that is known to be a lie: A 99 RAV4 is front transaxle vehicle thereby doesn't have a front driveshaft. A 99 RAV4 front wheels are driven by two CV axles, one on each side, that attach to the transaxle. When in 4wd models, when in 4wd, a propshaft/driveshaft off the transaxle drives the rear wheels.
Removal of the front CV axles is not done from underneath and it's not a simple unbolting job. To remove each CV axle: The car must be raise and its front wheels removed. The rotor & caliper and axle nut must all be removed. The lower ball joints needs to be unbolted then a ball joint separator used to free the ballpoint from the hub carrier. The hub has to be unbolted from the hub carrier and then with some tugging the axle can be pulled out. The process needs to be done an each side and if the car is to be rolled the rolled the front hubs & ballpoints refitted and the wheels re-installed. If all goes well, the job can be done in 2-3 hours. If things are rusty, it can take up to 4hrs a side.
Long story short, the witness clearly lied about how the TH's car was moved and that's easily proven thereby the witness impeachable.
Long story short, the witness clearly lied about how the TH's car was moved and that's easily proven thereby the witness impeachable.
There are picture of what the 4WD RAV4 transaxle looks like. The first picture, towards the front, shows where the left CV axle connects and the rear propshaft (To drive the rear wheels) on the left side of the picture:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1996-1997-Toyota-Rav4-Transmission-Transaxle-4X4-AT-1803443/163244910798?fits=Year%3A1999%7CModel%3ARAV4&hash=item260227a8ce%3Ag%3A3eAAAOSwEaBZ74NN&LH_ItemCondition=4
This is a video showing how a front CV axle on the 99 RAV4 is removed and replaced. In the first part of the video it shows how the CV axle connects directly to the transaxle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySykAYKPgCA
This picture shows the difference between a traditional 4wd with its engine mounted facing forward vs a transverse engine & transaxle configuration in which the engine is mounted sideward in the car. In a traditional configuration (the top photo) the engine connects to a transmission which connects to a transfer case. Attached to the transfer case are two driveshaft (front & rear). Each driveshaft goes to a differential (front & rear) which turn the wheels. The bottom photo shows a transverse configuration. With a transverse configuration, which is what a RAV4 uses, the front differential is built into the transmission. Since differentials are also called "axles" the term "transaxle" is often used to reference the transmission:
https://www.fmmotorparts.com/content/loc-na/loc-us/fmmp-corporate/en_US/parts-matter/learning-center/automotive-repair-and-maintenance/symptoms-of-failing-driveshaft/_jcr_content/main-par/article/article-par/image_251068964.img.jpg/4WD-AWD-Illustration-1504121784423.jpg
This is a illustration shows a RAV4's transaxle and how the front differential is built into the transmission unit. Because the differential is built into the transmission, thereby making it a transaxle, there is no front driveshaft or transfercase (The transaxle acts in replacement) of the transfer case):
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHsbMKReEY_nsabmQn2F_E7tYlqpT-TqiaKEqRU-MYVUsqNEU6V7rmT-r5mqUZbLMXT0o1cS1SpNK4xRHww0SVZs048fNLixeVKmqWGrrVoc3H6jv7Ly9V5l6M4obbxSQvIpMfg6ihOlk/s1600/E153.JPG
Unlike a traditional 4wd, which is rear wheel drive, a traversed configuration is front wheel drive when not in four wheel drive. If you were to buy a RAV4 you'd have an option between two wheel drive, which is front wheel drive, and a four wheel drive model:
https://www.nadaguides.com/Cars/1999/Toyota/Rav4-4-Cyl-4WD/Utility-4D-2WD/Values
The difference between the two as are follows: A 2wd has a different transaxle that doesn't have a rear output shaft and rather than a rear differential it has what are known as "stub axles". Stub axles just provide a mounting location for the wheels to spin on. Conversely, the 4wd model as rear differential that drive/turn the rear wheels when vehicle is in 4wd.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
My opinion has been either its lights were left on or a door was left ajar when it was left by the dam. However, to your point, if it was left running the battery would drain after it ran out a gas.
What I do know is the battery found in the car isn't for the car and it does fit under the battery hold-down. I also know the battery was purchased within the 12 months.
[–]ms_brabant[S]
The battery cables and the hood latch weren't really an item of interest until after the RAV4 had been returned to Calumet County. They were not actually swabbed for DNA at the crime lab in Madison, but in Calumet (in the shed in which it was being housed). All of this took place in April 2006, months after the RAV4 had been returned from Madison.
[–]ms_brabant[S]
It shouldn't be difficult to show that it was established protocol to disconnect the battery cables, and it shouldn't be difficult to show that TF, the guy who actually ordered to have the battery cables and the hood latch swabbed, knew that it was established protocol. Therefore, he had absolutely no reason to think that it had been SA who had opened the hood. It should never have occurred to him to ask Brendan Dassey about the hood, the battery cables, and all of that. If TF knew about the protocol, it would have never occurred to him to ask BD about the battery cables...unless he was up to something.
[–]Henbury
LE needed an explanation and reason why the battery was already disconnected. Otherwise, why would the battery be disconnected if the car was locked and no-one had been in the car or under the hood since it was found and controlled by LE? So LE 'discovered' SA DNA under the hood as an excuse as to why the battery was disconnected.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/9eptom/who_unhooked_the_battery_cables/
All About The Battery Cables (self.TickTockManitowoc)
by ms_brabant
I wanted to post one last time about the battery cables. I did some research today, and I thought, at the very least, it would important to document exactly what happened, by whom, and when, regarding all that we know about the battery cables. So, here goes:
Nov 6, 2005: Degnitz: You got some kind of memo that if it's inside it's supposed to have the battery disconnected [page 12]
We know that Degnitz, when speaking with O'Neill on November 6th, 2005, referred to a memo that had been circulated (by email?) about the need to disconnect battery cables. He asked this question of O'Neill as SA Pontiac Grand Am was being prepared for towing by Witt's Towing in Marionette County.
TH's RAV4 arrives at the Wisconsin State Crime Lab in Madison late in the evening on November 5th.
Ronald Groffy testifies that when he got to the crime lab around 11:00am the following morning, November 6th, the driver's side door was unlocked. [Groffy's testimony]
Nick Stahlke arrives at the crime lab on November 7th. In court, he testifies that on that date, he tried to take the odometer reading on TH's RAV4 but couldn't. He initially assumes that the battery is dead, but when he investigates further (after the vehicle had been sitting at the crime lab for over a day), he opens the hood and learns that the battery cables had been disconnected. [Stahlke's court testimony pp 230]
Sherry Culhane testifies that, when she was at the crime lab, she uses the key found on the floor of SA's trailer to turn the ignition switch over. She testifies that the ignition yielded to the force of the key but wouldn't start because the battery had been disconnected. It is not clear when she performed this test. [Culhane's testimony pp 181]
Someone at the crime lab had to have reconnected the battery cables because, on November 7th, Ron Groffy reports to Thomas Fassbender that the odometer reading on the RAV4 is 95,753 [page 73]
November 11, 2005, The RAV4 is sent back from The Wisconsin State Crime Lab and returned for storage in Calumet County under the custodianship of the Calumet County Sheriff's Department.
February 27, 2006, BD is interviewed by W&F. He is not asked about either the battery or the hood latch of TH's 1999 Toyota RAV4 [interview]
March 1, 2006, In an interview, TF says to BD: "OK. Did he, did he, did he go and look at the engine, did he raise the hood at all or anything like that? To do something to that car?" Brendan: "Yeah". [March 1, 2005 interview]
April 3, 2006, The hood latch and battery cables of the RAV4 are swabbed for DNA evidence by Bill Tyson. Deputy Jeremy Hawkins takes pictures of both the right and left battery cable. He also takes a picture of the hood latch. This is done in Calumet County where the RAV4 is being kept. [CASO pp 887]
May 10, 2006, Results of the swabs taken from the hood latch come back positive for SA's DNA [CASO pp 752]
May 13, 2006, BD is questioned once more by W&F. Wiegert asks, "Did he tell you that he unhooked the battery on her?" BD answers, "Not that I know of" [interview May 13, 2006 pp 109]
November 11, 2006, Deputy Jeremy Hawkins of Calumet County Sheriff's goes out to the shed (in Calumet) where the RAV4 is stored. He connects the battery cables to the battery, and uses a key to start the RAV4. Before he leaves, he documents that he disconnects the battery cables. [CASO pp 1001]
If the protocol had been to disconnect the battery cables as the memo sited by Degnitz suggests, no one at the crime lab in Madison would have thought much of the cables being disconnected when Ertl, Stahlke, and Groffy examined the car on November 6 - 7.
That actually appears to be the case because of all the swabs that had been taken of the RAV4 before it was sent back to Calumet on November 11th, 2005, none were taken of the hood latch or the battery cables.
The only reason that the state of the battery cables seems like it might have been a point of interest to those working in the crime lab is because of this photograph (exhibit 302).
But did Groffy took that photo on either November 6th or 7th? It isn't clear.
What is clear, however, is that on April 3rd, 2006, Jeremy Hawkins takes pictures of both the right and left cables.
But did Groffy took that photo on either November 6th or 7th? It isn't clear.
What is clear, however, is that on April 3rd, 2006, Jeremy Hawkins takes pictures of both the right and left cables.
The RAV4 was only in Madison for a week and TF knew about the battery cables being disconnected the day after it got there on the 6th (or very late on the 5th). Why didn't TF have someone swab the battery cables and hood latch while it was still in Madison?
When the RAV4 returns to Calumet on November 11th, 2005, TF still waits over four months before having he hood latch and the battery photographed and swabbed.
Most importantly, if TF knew of the memo, or he knew of established protocol about disconnecting the battery cables, why would it have ever occurred to him to ask BD about why they were disconnected in the first place?
Also, by the sequence of events, you would almost get the impression that TF waited until he could get BD to confess that the hood had been opened before ordering the swabbing and photographing the hood latch and battery cables.
But if TF had every reason to think that the hood had been opened and the battery disconnected by the killer (as opposed to someone at the crime lab following standard procedure), what difference would it have made if Brendan Dassey confessed that he saw SA open the hood?
Lastly, it is fairly evident that there had to have been a protocol to disconnect the battery cables of a vehicle stored in evidence.
Though no policy is ever mentioned, it is still implicit. For example, the battery had to have been connected when the odometer was read. We know this by Stahlke's testimony because he asserts that the reason he wasn't initially able to read the odometer was because the battery cables weren't connected. So, if we know that the odometer was read on November 7th, 2005 while still at the crime lab in Madison, according to provided documentation, someone must have connected the battery cables. By the time Sherry Cullhane shows up to try the key, the cables are again disconnected when they just as easily could have been left connected.
Deputy Hawkins does, however, explicitly state that he connected, then disconnected the battery cables on November 20, 2006. There can be no doubt that he was following established protocol.
This is why I think getting that memo that Degnitz was referring to on November 6th is so important.
If it can be shown that there was an established protocol, and it can be shown that this protocol was strictly observed—not impossible goals, I should think—then we really need to ask ourselves why TF, a man with decades of experience, thought to ask BD about the battery cables.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
As I've indicated before, disconnecting the battery during transport is very common. The reason being, which I've personally seen, is a wreck can short and set the transport on fire. So, I agree the cable was likely not disconnected by SA as the Prosecution had asserted.
In my younger days I did recovery work and I still know people who do. Individual outfits may very well have different policies, but those I know will fire the driver if he didn't connect the battery.
[–]guruanothoer
did they generally 1. cut the cable, or 2. remove the clamp from the battery or 3. remove the cable from the clamp? I have mentioned before that I find it odd to remove the cable from the clamp rather than removing the clamp from the battery.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
Most of the time they disconnected, but on some salvage vehicles where access was tough they'd cut it.
Removing from the clamp is easier, since you don't need to deal with prying the clamp apart.
What is odd is where the disconnected cable was left:
I'm a car enthusiast and often disconnect the battery while doing repairs. I instinctively tuck the cable away from the battery, so it can't make contact while I'm working. Personally, I would expect both a tow guy & salvage guy to do the same.
[–]ms_brabant[S]
That's vital info to know. Thanks for the update. Clearly Tom Fassbender had the intention of tricking Brendan Dassey. Clearly he must have known why the battery cables were disconnected. I have to wonder on how many other people they played this trick on.
[–]MMonroe54
> I have to wonder on how many other people they played this trick on.
Good question. I wonder, too, how often Fassbender did this in his career. Someone recently pointed me to a WI CofA ruling in a case in which the defendant claimed outrageous governmental conduct stemming from Fassbender masquerading as a defense attorney in order to get the defendant to incriminate himself....which he obligingly did. The CofA affirmed the lower court's decision that there was no outrageous governmental conduct because it found that Fassbender, while pretending to be a defense attorney, didn't actually give the defendant legal advice. But it doesn't alter the fact that Fassbender did it. Maybe he made a habit of this kind of "police work", instead of good old fashioned investigation practices.
Well, to be clear -- and fair -- Fassbender didn't represent himself as the defendant's attorney but as an attorney of another inmate, who was actually an informant/snitch. He called the defendant and pretended to be a defense attorney brokering a murder for hire deal. When the defendant was released on parole he called this "attorney" (actually Fassbender) to arrange to carry out the deal. The CofA Decision says Fassbender expressed sympathy to the defendant (sound familiar?).
This sounded very like entrapment to me, but apparently it didn't meet entrapment criteria, or the defendant didn't argue that he was lured (trapped) to participate in a murder for hire, only that the government (Fassbender) was guilty of outrageous conduct. As we know, LE can legally lie to suspects/defendants, and the CofA decided it was no more than that.
[–]Henbury
> I think it reasonable to believe TF would know about disconnecting a battery before transporting a vehicle.
I agree there are issues with each piece of evidence, even if SA is guilty. If innocent, they are serious red fkn flags.
The pattern you talk of is their problem solving.
If innocent, what is the problem and how was it solved? Planting his DNA under the hood is serious overkill when they could have just said he was under the hood.
If innocent, what is the problem they were solving? In the context of their narrative, there was a problem under the hood and only going to the trouble of planting DNA evidence could solve it...
[–]ms_brabant[S]
The only reason Fassbender and Wiegert ask about the hood, either on March 1st, 2006, or on May 13th is to try to get Brendan to explain why the battery cables were disconnected.
Fassbender doesn't just ask about the hood generally. He's after something: "OK. Did he, did he, did he go and look at the engine, did he raise the hood at all or anything like that? To do something to that car?"
Fassbender doesn't just ask about the hood generally. He's after something: "OK. Did he, did he, did he go and look at the engine, did he raise the hood at all or anything like that? To do something to that car?"
Once again, my overall thrust is that Fassbender shouldn't have had any reason to ask Brendan about the hood, or the battery cables, or any of it if disconnecting the battery cables was established protocol.
The implications are huge because it means that some official working in some capacity for the state of Wisconsin disconnected the battery cables. That means the DNA evidence found on the hood latch had to have been planted. This is a line of reasoning from which there can be no deviation. One does not need to wade into the highly speculative realm of why they decided to plant this evidence after they already had blood and so much else.
[–]Henbury
Thanks. And thanks for correcting me above: "Actually, no one ever said that it was SA who disconnected the battery cables... What they do is cleverly imply that he must have because his DNA is found on the hood latch."
I presume there's no documentation establishing the hood was already swabbed on the first pass? Which would be unusual if they knew the battery was disconnected and they thought the killer got under the hood and disconnected it...
I wholeheartedly agree with you and what you say. This is a very important line of inquiry.
I agree TF had no reason to ask BD about under the hood. But he did, and the question is why? All I can think of is that investigators found themselves in a situation where there was no denying the vehicle was discovered with the battery disconnected. They had to explain why.
If it's protocol for LE to disconnect the battery, and they did, then someone would have put their hand up and said they did it - apparently no-one did.
If it's protocol for LE to disconnect the battery, and they did, then someone would have put their hand up and said they did it - apparently no-one did.
So they have to explain why, pre-discovery, the battery was disconnected.
To fit the narrative of SA being guilty, then he must have been the only person to have done it -- planting his DNA leaves little doubt of that.
But, and I agree with you, they already had blood and other evidence tying him to the vehicle.
My point is, I see the purpose of the DNA on the hood latch is to place SA under the hood and disconnecting the battery beyond reasonable doubt, rather than tying him to the car (although a beneficial byproduct). It's covering something, rather than confirming something.
I agree with KZ's evidence that the amount of DNA found makes it unbelievable.
I agree with KZ's evidence that the amount of DNA found makes it unbelievable.
But again, why go to the trouble of creating/planting more evidence, so far down the line? Someone who is not SA was under the hood, and someone who is not SA disconnected the battery; and this is probative. It was important enough for them to place SA under the hood beyond reasonable doubt (with DNA) rather than anyone else.
It may be covering poor evidence collection (ie someone else's DNA was found on the hood latch because they weren't careful/sterile, casting doubt on evidence collected from the car), or someone was under the hood WHEN they shouldn't have been (ie LE before the 'locked' vehicle was first transported or forensically assessed), or someone was under the hood WHO shouldn't have been (ie killer, planter, or LE with a conflict of interest) but certainly something sinister.
If LE disconnected the battery, per protocol, why didn't they just say so?
Pursuing this line of inquiry will lead to something.
[–]MMonroe54
> Which would be unusual if they knew the battery was disconnected and they thought the killer got under the hood and disconnected it...
This is what we're arguing. If they were surprised to find the battery disconnected, why wouldn't they swab the hood latch and the battery cables on Nov 7, when Stahlke discovered it? If they didn't know how those cables got disconnected, wouldn't they think the killer did it, and may have left evidence? Stahlke says there were stains around the posts but he didn't test them. It was not his job to swab stains, only to analyze them. But why didn't Culhane swab them? Why didn't the fingerprint guys dust for prints on those cables, that battery, those posts? They dusted everywhere else on the RAV.
The only logical answer seems to be that they knew how the battery got disconnected -- because it was protocol -- so didn't bother.
Does it occur to anyone that if they disconnected the battery the night they brought the RAV in they had to open the vehicle to do it? And no one wanted to put his hand up and admit he opened the vehicle? Especially after they had not opened it for hours in order to preserve evidence until it got to the crime lab and lab scientists could do it?
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/9f23t4/all_about_the_battery_cables/e5tk1uj/
CASO REPORTS ABOUT THE RAV4 BATTERY AND CABLES
Page 755 - THIS REPORT IS OUT OF ORDER; IT SHOULD BE AFTER, NOT BEFORE, THE APRIL 2006 REPORTS
TYPE OF ACTIVITY: Interview of Brendan Dassey
Sheboygan County Sheriffs Dept.
DATE OF ACTIVITY: 05/13/06
REPORTING OFFICER: Inv. Mark Wiegert
It should be noted on 05/12/06 Agent FASSBENDER and I (lnv. MARK WIEGERT of the CALUMET COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT.) had received an email from Attomey LEN KACHINSKY who would represent BRENDAN DASSEY.
[...]
On 05/13/06, Agent FASSBENDER and I did go to the SHEBOYGAN COLINTY JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER. At approximately 8:46 a.m., the jail staff at Sheboygan County did present BRENDAN DASSEY into an interview room in the investigator's portion of the sheriff's dept. BRENDAN was then asked if in fact, he wished to meet with us, which BRENDAN indicated he did. We did go over with BRENDAN that his attorney had notified us that he wished to meet with us, he meaning BRENDAN wished to meet with us, and that his attorney okayed it. BRENDAN agreed with that statement. At that time Agent FASSBENDER did read BRENDAN his Miranda Rights. A copy of that Mirada Rights form will be included with this report. BRENDAN indicated to us that he understood each of his rights and that he was willing to speak with us. It should be noted that BRENDAN did initial both areas, indicating he understood and was willing to meet with us. It should be noted that BRENDAN did initial both areas, indicating he understood and was willing to meet with us. He also signed the Miranda form at 8:50 a.m. The signing was witnessed by Agent FASSBENDER and I (Inv. WIEGERT).
The following will be a very brief synopsis of the interview.
[...]
Page 838
WIEGERT: Did he tell you that he unhooked the battery on her jeep?
BRENDAN: Not that I know of.
Page 873
TYPE OF ACTIVITY: Interview of Service Manager of Best Toyota
DATE OF ACTIVITY: 07/03/06
REPORTING OFFICER: Inv. Mark Wiegert
On 07/03/06 at approximately 9:00 a.m., I (Inv. WIEGERT of the CALUMET COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT) made phone contact with a CURT JUDSON who would be the Parts Manager at LE MIEUX TOYOTA in the City of Green Bay.
My purpose for speaking with CURT was to determine what type of battery would have been in the 1999 Toyota RAV4.
CURT states the battery would be called a Group 35 battery. The name on it would be True Start. He states the battery is made for TOYOTA by INTERSTATE BATTERIES, however, would not say INTERSTATE on it.
I did request that CURT send me the schematics of the battery and its connections. It should be noted I did receive a fax from CURT of those schematics.
Investigation continues.
Inv. Mark Wiegert
Calumet Co. Sheriff's Dept.
MW/bds
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K1IyTPNYDIKntoUkoM4PVd7D5Uh047ya/view
Page 886 - THE FOLLOWING TWO REPORTS ARE OUT OF ORDER, MEANING THEY WERE FILED MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF ACTIVITY
TYPE OF ACTIVITY: Processing of Evidence
DATE OF ACTIVITY: 04/03/06
REPORTING OFFICER: Deputy Jeremy Hawkins
[...]
At approximately 1940 hours, I photographed the exterior door handle on the driver's side of the RAV4. After the door handle was photographed, I took a DNA swab of the driver's side door handle of the exterior of the Toyota.
At approximately 1941 hours, I took a photograph of the hood latch of the Toyota RAV4.
At approximately 1945 hours, I took a photograph of the left battery cable of the Toyota RAV4.
At approximately 1947 hours, I took a photograph of the right side battery cable of the Toyota
RAV4.
After I photographed the right and left battery cable and hood latch, and Sgt. TYSON took DNA swabs of these locations, the storage unit containing the Toyota RAV4 was secured.
Deputy Jeremy Hawkins
Calumet Co. Sheriff's Dept.
JH / bd
Page 936
TYPE OF ACTIVITY: Processing of Evidence
DATE OF ACTIVITY: 04/03/06
REPORTING OFFICER: Deputy Jeremy Hawkins
On Monday, 04/03/06, I (Sgt. BILL TYSON) did meet with Sheriff JERRY PAGEL, Inv. MARK WIEGERT, Inv. JOHN DEDERING, and Special Agent TOM FASSBENDER at the sheriff's department.
[...]
Deputy HAWKINS and I went to the storage shed where TERESA HALBACH's vehicle was being stored. Deputy HAWKINS did unlock the storage shed. Inv. WIEGERT and Special Agent FASSBENDER had informed us they wished for us to do DNA swabs on the interior and exterior of the door handles of TERESA HALBACH's vehicle. They also requested DNA swabs done on the hood latch as well as the battery cables for the vehicle. TERESA's vehicle would be identified as Property Tag#8027.
At 1930 hours, I did a DNA swab on the interior passenger door handle.
At 1933 hours, I did a DNA swab on the exterior passenger door handle.
At 1937 hours, I did a DNA swab on the hood latch to the hood of the vehicle.
At 1941hours, a DNA swab was done on the left battery cable.
At 1943 hours, a DNA swab was done on the right battery cable.
Deputy HAWKINS also did DNA swabs on the interior and exterior handles of the driver's door.
After the DNA swabs had been collected, the door to the storage locker was secured. Deputy HAWKINS and I transported the swabs that were collected to the sheriff s department and the swabs were secured in the CALUMET COLUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT evidence room.
Sgt. Bill Tyson
Calumet Co. Sheriff's Dept.
BT/bds
Page 1001
TYPE OF ACTIVITY: Identifying Key to RAV4
DATE OF ACTIVITY: 11/20/06
REPORTING OFFICER: Deputy Jeremy Hawkins
On 11/20/06, I (Deputy JEREMY HAWKINS of the CALUMET COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT) was asked by Inv. MARK WIEGERT to connect the battery of the RAV4 and see if the Toyota key that was found in the bedroom of STEVEN AVERY would start the RAV4.
I retrieved Property Tag #7620, the Toyota key, and also property Tag #9130, two keys to the lock, out of secure storage.
I went out to the blue storage unit with Lt. KELLY SIPPEL. I unlocked the locks to the blue storage unit. I opened the blue storage unit at approximately 9:38 a.m. Lt. SIPPEL and myself put gloves on.
At approximately 9:39 a.m., I opened the hood release and Lt. SIPPEL opened the hood of the motor vehicle. Lt. SIPPEL then placed the battery leads onto the battery.
At approximately 9:43 a.m., I put the key into the ignition and turned the key. At approximately 9:45 a.m., I started the RAV4 using the key that was in evidence.
At approximately 9:47 a.m., the battery was disconnected and the hood to the RAV4 was closed.
I then secured the blue storage unit by placing the locks back on and locking the locks. The Toyota key and the keys to the blue storage unit were placed back into sectrie storage by myself.
Deputy Jeremy Hawkins
Calumet Co. Sheriff's Dept.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/9f23t4/all_about_the_battery_cables/e5tk1uj/
CASO REPORTS ABOUT THE RAV4 BATTERY AND CABLES
Page 755 - THIS REPORT IS OUT OF ORDER; IT SHOULD BE AFTER, NOT BEFORE, THE APRIL 2006 REPORTS
TYPE OF ACTIVITY: Interview of Brendan Dassey
Sheboygan County Sheriffs Dept.
DATE OF ACTIVITY: 05/13/06
REPORTING OFFICER: Inv. Mark Wiegert
It should be noted on 05/12/06 Agent FASSBENDER and I (lnv. MARK WIEGERT of the CALUMET COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT.) had received an email from Attomey LEN KACHINSKY who would represent BRENDAN DASSEY.
[...]
On 05/13/06, Agent FASSBENDER and I did go to the SHEBOYGAN COLINTY JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER. At approximately 8:46 a.m., the jail staff at Sheboygan County did present BRENDAN DASSEY into an interview room in the investigator's portion of the sheriff's dept. BRENDAN was then asked if in fact, he wished to meet with us, which BRENDAN indicated he did. We did go over with BRENDAN that his attorney had notified us that he wished to meet with us, he meaning BRENDAN wished to meet with us, and that his attorney okayed it. BRENDAN agreed with that statement. At that time Agent FASSBENDER did read BRENDAN his Miranda Rights. A copy of that Mirada Rights form will be included with this report. BRENDAN indicated to us that he understood each of his rights and that he was willing to speak with us. It should be noted that BRENDAN did initial both areas, indicating he understood and was willing to meet with us. It should be noted that BRENDAN did initial both areas, indicating he understood and was willing to meet with us. He also signed the Miranda form at 8:50 a.m. The signing was witnessed by Agent FASSBENDER and I (Inv. WIEGERT).
The following will be a very brief synopsis of the interview.
[...]
Page 838
WIEGERT: Did he tell you that he unhooked the battery on her jeep?
BRENDAN: Not that I know of.
Page 873
TYPE OF ACTIVITY: Interview of Service Manager of Best Toyota
DATE OF ACTIVITY: 07/03/06
REPORTING OFFICER: Inv. Mark Wiegert
On 07/03/06 at approximately 9:00 a.m., I (Inv. WIEGERT of the CALUMET COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT) made phone contact with a CURT JUDSON who would be the Parts Manager at LE MIEUX TOYOTA in the City of Green Bay.
My purpose for speaking with CURT was to determine what type of battery would have been in the 1999 Toyota RAV4.
CURT states the battery would be called a Group 35 battery. The name on it would be True Start. He states the battery is made for TOYOTA by INTERSTATE BATTERIES, however, would not say INTERSTATE on it.
I did request that CURT send me the schematics of the battery and its connections. It should be noted I did receive a fax from CURT of those schematics.
Investigation continues.
Inv. Mark Wiegert
Calumet Co. Sheriff's Dept.
MW/bds
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K1IyTPNYDIKntoUkoM4PVd7D5Uh047ya/view
Page 886 - THE FOLLOWING TWO REPORTS ARE OUT OF ORDER, MEANING THEY WERE FILED MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF ACTIVITY
TYPE OF ACTIVITY: Processing of Evidence
DATE OF ACTIVITY: 04/03/06
REPORTING OFFICER: Deputy Jeremy Hawkins
[...]
At approximately 1940 hours, I photographed the exterior door handle on the driver's side of the RAV4. After the door handle was photographed, I took a DNA swab of the driver's side door handle of the exterior of the Toyota.
At approximately 1941 hours, I took a photograph of the hood latch of the Toyota RAV4.
At approximately 1945 hours, I took a photograph of the left battery cable of the Toyota RAV4.
At approximately 1947 hours, I took a photograph of the right side battery cable of the Toyota
RAV4.
After I photographed the right and left battery cable and hood latch, and Sgt. TYSON took DNA swabs of these locations, the storage unit containing the Toyota RAV4 was secured.
Deputy Jeremy Hawkins
Calumet Co. Sheriff's Dept.
JH / bd
Page 936
TYPE OF ACTIVITY: Processing of Evidence
DATE OF ACTIVITY: 04/03/06
REPORTING OFFICER: Deputy Jeremy Hawkins
On Monday, 04/03/06, I (Sgt. BILL TYSON) did meet with Sheriff JERRY PAGEL, Inv. MARK WIEGERT, Inv. JOHN DEDERING, and Special Agent TOM FASSBENDER at the sheriff's department.
[...]
Deputy HAWKINS and I went to the storage shed where TERESA HALBACH's vehicle was being stored. Deputy HAWKINS did unlock the storage shed. Inv. WIEGERT and Special Agent FASSBENDER had informed us they wished for us to do DNA swabs on the interior and exterior of the door handles of TERESA HALBACH's vehicle. They also requested DNA swabs done on the hood latch as well as the battery cables for the vehicle. TERESA's vehicle would be identified as Property Tag#8027.
At 1930 hours, I did a DNA swab on the interior passenger door handle.
At 1933 hours, I did a DNA swab on the exterior passenger door handle.
At 1937 hours, I did a DNA swab on the hood latch to the hood of the vehicle.
At 1941hours, a DNA swab was done on the left battery cable.
At 1943 hours, a DNA swab was done on the right battery cable.
Deputy HAWKINS also did DNA swabs on the interior and exterior handles of the driver's door.
After the DNA swabs had been collected, the door to the storage locker was secured. Deputy HAWKINS and I transported the swabs that were collected to the sheriff s department and the swabs were secured in the CALUMET COLUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT evidence room.
Sgt. Bill Tyson
Calumet Co. Sheriff's Dept.
BT/bds
Page 1001
TYPE OF ACTIVITY: Identifying Key to RAV4
DATE OF ACTIVITY: 11/20/06
REPORTING OFFICER: Deputy Jeremy Hawkins
On 11/20/06, I (Deputy JEREMY HAWKINS of the CALUMET COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT) was asked by Inv. MARK WIEGERT to connect the battery of the RAV4 and see if the Toyota key that was found in the bedroom of STEVEN AVERY would start the RAV4.
I retrieved Property Tag #7620, the Toyota key, and also property Tag #9130, two keys to the lock, out of secure storage.
I went out to the blue storage unit with Lt. KELLY SIPPEL. I unlocked the locks to the blue storage unit. I opened the blue storage unit at approximately 9:38 a.m. Lt. SIPPEL and myself put gloves on.
At approximately 9:39 a.m., I opened the hood release and Lt. SIPPEL opened the hood of the motor vehicle. Lt. SIPPEL then placed the battery leads onto the battery.
At approximately 9:43 a.m., I put the key into the ignition and turned the key. At approximately 9:45 a.m., I started the RAV4 using the key that was in evidence.
At approximately 9:47 a.m., the battery was disconnected and the hood to the RAV4 was closed.
I then secured the blue storage unit by placing the locks back on and locking the locks. The Toyota key and the keys to the blue storage unit were placed back into sectrie storage by myself.
Deputy Jeremy Hawkins
Calumet Co. Sheriff's Dept.
12. A witness smelled horrible odor of something burning in Manitowoc County gravel pit the evening of 10/31/05.— Kathleen Zellner (@ZellnerLaw) November 15, 2018
[–]J-daddy96
ReplyDeleteThe undercover/unmarked CVs use the 58, as has been pointed out in this sub.
[–]seekingtruthforgood
Interstate, itself, per that image I referenced, establishes its 58 is used for 95 Crown Victorias. Are you actually viewing the link I gave you? That image is from Interstate's own website. The manufacturer of the battery found in Teresa's RAV is Interstate. In addition, Toyota doesn't install a 58 in any of its vehicles - not one. Aside from that, the real head-scratcher for me is why law enforcement never asked about that - they fed Brendan information about the cables being disconnected, they knew there was a problem with the battery because they called her dealer about this discrepancy, but, they never documented tracking down that battery to determine where it came from, even though it would have been traceable, as Zellner stated in her recent AMA. Combined with the front end damage (and Ryan lying about an insurance claim,) a dead/replaced/disconnected battery could have provided details about the handling of the RAV, as part of this crime... oh yeah, wait, that's probably exactly why this was overlooked.
[–]BruceybabyMcl
This is honestly open to so much speculation without evidence.
It's unlikely she purchased an incorrect battery herself for the reasons you descrive, or that someone sold her the wrong one, because as I recall someone explaining, the poles are smaller on the one that was fitted in the pictures.
It IS however; plausible that, a mechanic - in a bind - fitted the wrong battery (at least equally if not more plausible as the police fitting this battery during an evidence planting session.)
Considering I've seen somewhere that she had to have a mechanic fit wiper blades, I imagine she'd have a mechanic fit a battery were it required.
[–]StressoredOut[S]
My mechanic offers to replace items like the blades for me if they are worn. The mechanic will also check for the air filter, cabin filter, etc to see if those need replacing as well regardless of the reason I go in there.
I highly doubt a windshield wiper was the reason that the mechanic was inspecting the vehicle.
But at least we can agree together that Teresa didn't buy the battery.
An auto mechanic would be liable for any damages to the car, or Teresa if they would put in any battery that is not recommended. These days, around me, you can't get a mechanic to install parts that they don't purchase themselves because of liability issues. Also, mechanics around me don't put in parts because they are "in a pinch" when it comes to people's safety.
That would be irresponsible.
[–]black-dog-barks
It's really hysterical because the person on Tick Tock who reviewed the files made sure MC was running Crown Vics in 2005. And the other side can't believe Fleet Vehicles get serialized parts so county governments can track expenses.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/9y81hu/would_a_store_sell_teresa_the_wrong_battery_for/
[–]hnfhelper
ReplyDeletei personally think the rav 4 holds many secrets, such as altered VIN plate as noted in the detectives report, missing bolt and rubber seal from dash board, damage to front fender/turn signal, missing wheelwell plastic cover, swapped battery, bondo repair work on fender, junk yard paint pen marking underhood. I consider it a real possibility that the Blue rav4 was pulled out of a Junkyard owned by the sheriff. All reports state TH's GREEN rav4 was in Great condition and she took great care of it.
[–]MtnHippieChick
A sheriff owns a junk yard? Which one? VIN plate altered? Bondo repair? Didn't know this. Good grief!
[–]hnfhelper
lots of good info on this reddit if you search for the key words Manitowoc County Sheriff Robert Hermann owns a salvage yard does towing and sells used cars!!! and if you do keyword search for bondo another investigator here on reddit has all the pics of the bondo work done on this junk box rav
[–]NoKratzFan
The most interesting part is that in July of 85 the salvage yard owned by Sheriff Hermann's family was annexed land. That's the same month of the PB rape. They were in competition with the Avery's, and it's not a stretch to say it had an impact on business.
It's not so much that it's a motive to frame him in 85, but it's a reason to keep your mouth shut about Gregory Allen being guilty. Just another person with a vested interest in seeing Steven Avery going to jail.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/46rgo4/the_tale_of_sherriff_robert_hermann_by_the_other/d07skvr/
[–]falcone1204
ReplyDeleteIt's truly weird to allege annexation as a special benefit without offering any commentary as to why it would be characterized that way. Typically, businesses fight annexation like hell in the Midwest, because the primary outcome is a higher property tax bill. It's one of the problems that results from a system that overrelies on property tax.
[–]leiluhotnot
Herman
Sheriff /undersheriff as Jodi arrested 30 Oct for a fine, not released on 31 Oct. No albili for Steven Avery
Competing salvage yard with smelter.
TH missing 1 or 2 days before Herman deposed in $36million lawsuit.
Am I suppose to believe this is all coincidental? Impossible.
[–]bigbuddysam
Are you all aware that the Hermann family has a cottage about 25 north of the Avery family's cottage in northern Marienette county.
[–]
Hermann
Sheriff /undersheriff as Jodi arrested 30 Oct for a fine, not released on 31 Oct. No albili for Steven Avery.
Competing salvage yard with smelter.
Teresa Halbach missing 1 or 2 days before Hermann was to be deposed in $36 million lawsuit.
Am I suppose to believe this is all coincidental? Impossible.
[–]Wildinvalid
Maybe this is the consunsus of what Zellner means with BIG GREEN DOLLARS. They're a good ol' fashion mafia!
[–]CopperPipeDream
Ha! I was just thinking the same thing. I've never known of another case with so many shady people. It's unreal.
[–]NoKratzFan
I think the reaction is based on what happened in July of 85. Unless this guy decided to manufacture that information completely it's a pretty big deal. Gregory Allen couldn't have been more guilty and Avery had an alibi. There's honestly no reason law enforcement should have made that mistake.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/46rgo4/the_tale_of_sherriff_robert_hermann_by_the_other/
The Hermann family has a long history in the Cleveland area.
ReplyDeleteGOTTLIEB HERMANN http://www.2manitowoc.com/10obit.html
Gottlieb Hermann, 67, of Rt. 1, Cleveland, who died Wednesday at Providence Hospital, El Paso, Texas. Burial will be in a Sheboygan cemetery.
Mr. Hermann was born Sept. 20, 1900, at Schaeffer, Russia, son of the late Sophia and Christ Hermann. He came to Sheboygan in 1912, married Viola Kalk in 1923 and moved to Cleveland in 1929. He started the Cleveland Auto Sales and Salvage Inc., formerly Cleveland Auto Parts, of which he was president.
He was a member of Manitowoc County Sheriff and Deputies Assn., the Wisconsin and National Sheiffs and Deputies Associations, Cleveland Lions Club, Chamber of Commerce, Cleveland Fire Dept., Volga Aid Society and the Ebenezer Society of Sheboygan.
ROBERT KARL HERMANN
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=24792820
Robert Karl Hermann, age 82, of Cleveland, passed away on Monday, February 18, 2008, at Holy Family Memorial Medical Center in Manitowoc.
He was born March 11, 1925, in the Town of Centerville, the son of the late Gottlieb and Viola (Kalk) Hermann.
Robert served in the U.S. Army during World War II in the European and Pacific Theaters.
Robert worked for his father at Cleveland Auto Sales & Salvage, Inc., eventually becoming owner/operator of the business. During this time he also worked for the Manitowoc County Traffic Department as a traffic officer, retiring in 1974. He retired as owner/operator of Cleveland Auto in 1997 but he was still active in the business until his time of death.
ESTHER M. HERMANN
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/htrnews/obituary.aspx?pid=170946142
Esther M. Hermann, 86, of Cleveland, passed away Tuesday, May 06, 2014 at Holy Family Memorial Hospital, Manitowoc.
Esther was born April 26, 1928 in Port Washington to the late Edward and Anna (Kleckner) Biever. On November 27, 1948, she married Robert Hermann. She was employed by Cleveland Auto Sales as the secretary/treasurer.
Esther is survived by four sons and two daughters,
In July of 1985 the salvage yard owned by Sheriff Hermann's family was annexed land. That's the same month of the PB rape. They were in competition with the Avery's, and it's not a stretch to say it had an impact on business. It's truly weird to allege annexation as a special benefit without offering any commentary as to why it would be characterized that way. Typically, businesses fight annexation like hell in the Midwest because the primary outcome is a higher property tax bill.
ReplyDeleteftp://doaftp1380.wi.gov/doadocs/MunicipalData/SOS/00006429.pdf
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/46rgo4/the_tale_of_sherriff_robert_hermann_by_the_other/d07skvr/
Does anyone else find it strange that the Manitowoc County Sheriff (Robert Hermann) also owns a salvage yard? self.MakingaMurderer
ReplyDeleteby nainos
http://jonsjailjournal.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/making-murderer-update-9-car-crash.html?m=1
He would definitely have access to a tow truck...
Direct link is here
http://cleveland-auto-sales-salvage.cleveland.wi.amfibi.directory/us/c/18826455-cleveland-auto-sales-salvage
"Before he chose law enforcement, he had worked in an auto body shop and a salvage yard, skills that came in handy when he and his younger brother, Todd Hermann, would detail the squad cars that used to come directly from the factory as blank slates."
http://www.htrnews.com/story/news/local/2014/07/01/sheriff-robert-hermann-recalls-career-highlights-changes/11944007/
[–]kryptyk123
What I'd like to know is why this woman's Youtube channel is now shut after she has been naming and providing possible theories to do with Robert Hermann himself.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyLALbGdVGjkF-khcku91jA
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3zl9ym/does_anyone_else_find_it_strange_that_the/
[–]chromeomykiss
But what if the foundry that ST was employed by had a supervisor with the same last name as Sheriff Tom Kocourek? And that he is most likely related as even Gene Kucshe could have sketched this EK as TK if given a pencil.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/42m4l7/sheriff_hermann_owneds_a_salvage_yard_with_a/
[–]Booty_Grazer
ReplyDeleteCorrect ...the salvage business didn't make a lot of friends. It was all negation, how much your willing to pay people for junk vehicles and incoming sales negations on specific parts. Police tow in's, tow away, accidental damage etc. Not everyone left happy. Especially when you saw the junk car you sold ASY for $75 setting out front or in an ad for >$Thousands. Swapping parts from one to another was big dollars. Got a car with over 100k miles have another with 50k miles swap out the Speed ~ o providing it looked the part. Engine Trans junk just swap n sell.
[–]MMonroe54
Wait....are you saying the Averys ran their salvage yard in ways not common to most salvage yards, including the other one we hear most about, whose family had LE connections? The auto salvage business has always been as you describe, as in parts are worth what they price them at -- no manufacturers suggested retail price, in other words. And it's ridiculous for people to feel resentment or bitterness at seeing a junk car they sold being sold again for more. I mean, it was their decision to sell it, right? They could have fixed it up, too, and sold it for thousands.
Most salvage yards are unpopular because of the way they look -- messy, not attractive. But Avery's was in the country, surrounded by quarries, by the way, so I wouldn't think that would apply. They could also be unpopular because the owners were unpleasant people who were hard to get along with, but even Colborn said he had a good relationship with them.
LE and/or the community could have disliked the family personally but I don't get that it was because of their business.
[–]Booty_Grazer
My Uncle owned one here in MI. even my father had animosities towards his brother because of the business and dealings from the past. Compare the salvage business to the pawn business with the exception of buyers in the salvage business. My uncle knew how valuable a part was by production in how many cars trucks the part fit and he would charge accordingly because he knew sometimes he could get over original value because a lot of parts were no longer available. (I hung out as a teen, got to play with cool stuff)
He was a tow service for the police, and let me tell you I NEVER SAW one customer come in happy to pay his fee's. Not only that but a lot of times the vehicle had damage well the release plainly states NO RESPISONSIBILITY for damage, again my uncle just poured gas on the fire when situations came up like that.
He was a cool guy but he was a PRICK who knew his business, oh and his estate was in higher 7 figures when he died.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/83eqy1/family_and_community_dynamics/
[–]Spitriol
Check the police interviews with Steven in Nov 05. In them he states that business died off after his conviction in 85.
In a remarkable coincidence, Robert Hermann, whose family owns the rival salvage, and would become Sheriff, joined the Sheriff's Dept in 84.
[–]jmwebb22
FWIW, there is a Robert Hermann on Facebook who is from Two Rivers and is friends with a Robert Bloedorn.
[–]wafflehat
And, his picture is of a Mercedes, obviously what a car dealer would have. And he's also friends with someone named Rich Bloedorn as well.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/44rd3s/found_this_original_poster_danniez_anyone_not/
Batteries and warranties self.MakingaMurderer
ReplyDeleteby Soloandthewookiee
As we found out yesterday, the battery found in the Rav4 was not the correct size and Zellner claims that she can trace the battery through warranty records.
The first thing to note is that you don't register car battery warranties like you do for electronics. If you look at Interstate's warranty page, there's no registration information, no addresses to mail warranty cards, just the information on how to obtain a warranty replacement:
To obtain a replacement battery, you must present your original battery to an IB Authorized Warranty Dealer or All Battery Center Store that has an appropriate replacement battery in stock.
When you purchase the battery, the person who sells it to you is supposed to make marks on the month/year circles on label (like so) so that if you return it, you don't need a receipt to know when it was installed.
Batteries can also have a ship date code stamped on the housing so that if you don't have a receipt and nobody marked the label, the store can still have a rough idea of how old the battery is.
EDIT: In the evidence photo, you can actually see what seems to be the ship date code on the battery. It appears to read "J4", which would indicate that the battery was shipped from the plant in October of 2004 (the letter represents the month, A = January, B = February, etc. and the number is the last digit of the year, 4 = 2004 in this case). Circumstantially, the Interstate link I provided above says that most batteries are sold within 3 months of being put on the shelf (otherwise they have to be recharged), which would give a likely purchase date of no later than January of 2005, but this by no means a concrete date. END EDIT
The issue with tracing it is that car batteries like this do not appear to have any unique identifiers. There is a barcode on the label, but this is the UPC number, which would be the same on every battery of the same model. It's washed out on the first picture I posted, but in this photo, you clearly read the label and see that it is a UPC. You can even scan it with your phone or Google the UPC number and it will return this model battery.
It has also been mentioned that OEMs (Toyota, Ford, GM, etc.) will often have unique label identifiers on some parts (not all) so they can track individual parts and determine which vehicle it was installed on at which plant, on which day, etc. This is broadly called "part traceability" and could be used by Zellner to narrow down where the battery came from.
However, Interstate is an aftermarket brand, not an OEM brand. Toyota uses batteries manufactured by Interstate (as well as other suppliers) in their plants, but they are branded as "TrueStart." Ford (which makes the Crown Vic that Zellner has suggested the battery came from) uses Motorcraft brand parts. Aftermarket parts do not have the same traceability because there's no way to track the part once it leaves the plant (i.e., Autozone doesn't scan who bought the part, and the customer doesn't scan the vehicle they put that part into).
So, at present, I don't really understand how Zellner can trace the battery with the certainty that she's claiming. Obviously she might have more evidence than what she has disclosed so far, but this is information to keep in mind in discussions about the battery.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/9xo8b0/batteries_and_warranties/
The State knew of the battery replacement. (self.TickTockManitowoc)
ReplyDeleteby CaseFilesReviewer
Page 873 of the CASO Investigative Report reveals Wiegert called a Toyota dealer on July 3rd, 2006, and asked what type of battery should be in a 1999 RAV4. Weigert was told: “The battery would be called a Group 35 battery. The name on it would be True Start." He also was told: "The battery is made for TOYOTA by INTERSTATE BATTERIES, however, would not say INTERSTATE on it.”
[–]now_biff
If Colborn put the battery in, then he clearly didn’t realize it could be traced, or he f’ed up royally and failed to get it back once the SUV was in place.
CASO started looking into it, wrote a report and after that realized what was happening and swept it under the rug
[–]CaseFilesReviewer[S]
Claiming SA swapped the battery would have drawn attention to the battery being swapped. Once trial counsel became aware they would have gone after its warranty just like KZ did thereby why the State wouldn't have used the information.
I do agree Wiegert wouldn't have called if he knew an LEO replaced the battery. Truth be told Wiegert may have never been looped in given the planter would want to keep the loop as small as possible.
It is my belief there is only one other Manitowoc employee, other than perhaps Lenk, and that is the person who works public works who owned a white CJ5 Jeep. What's interesting about that guy, who I will not name, is he drove a Crown Vic which was within the model years that had Group Size 58 batteries. I just made the connection yesterday and I updated KZ accordingly.
[–]MMonroe54
But they would have had to have some reason he swapped out a battery. And what would that reason be? Their scenario was that she drove in to the property of her own accord, in a functioning vehicle, and never left the property. So, why need a battery?
That, imo, is one reason they didn't make an issue of the battery. It didn't fit their story.
[–]magilla39
It seems like he generates a significant lead, but he doesn't follow it up. Batteries are money in a junk yard and this one was in good shape. Cars in the area where the RAV 4 are are moved by a front end loader, so why would Steven leave a fairly new battery in the RAV 4 at all?
[–]CaseFilesReviewer[S]
The big difference is the height, being nearly 2" shorter it would slide under the mounts.
CONTINUED...
[–]black-dog-barks
DeleteMW would have same means to find where the battery came from like KZ did... OPPs... better not go down that road....lol
[–]J-daddy96
There’s definitely evidence that an investigation was attempted by Calumet County, despite being completely undercut by MTSO. The question is, who told them to stand down? There are dead ends that shouldn’t exist because they weren’t followed to a conclusion, and were just abandoned.
[–]Whiznot
It could be ineffective assistance of counsel also. Avery's defenders had the CASO report and photographs of the battery.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer[S]
Wiegert didn't disclose why he called nor did he disclose the result of the call. He would have only called if suspected the battery had been replaced and the result confirms the suspicion.
[–]OpenMind4U
I don't think we can say that the state concealed it if it's in the CASO report which was shared with defense. He did disclose the result of the call.
Interesting to see if Discovery has any technical specification of the battery itself.
I found the most interesting fact that forensic analysis of battery didn't produce any forensic results: no fingerprints, no DNA. Even cables have zero forensics.
I honestly couldn't say for sure (yet!) if such 'not disclosure' has grounds for Brady. Regardless, you're correct, LE (Wiegert) knew/noticed something, otherwise, there was no reason to call Toyota in the first place. Still wondering why such 'notice' occured in July 2006? Lab was working with battery's forensics way before this day....so, why 'suddenly' this call?
[–]CaseFilesReviewer[S]
The date is interesting and it can only be explained is he learned of it near that date.
BTW - Had what I believe to be a breakthrough yesterday. I connected the white CJ5 Jeep back to a public works Manitowoc employee who drove a non-Interceptor Crown Vic of the model year that used a Group Size 58. Upon finding I conveyed the information, along with the CASO report info, over to KZ.
[–]MMonroe54
"Public works" as in Maintenance, Water, Electric, Sewer, Street departments for City of Manitowoc or County of Manitowoc?
[–]CaseFilesReviewer[S]
Yes! Thus, he would have access to the garage ;)
[–]MMonroe54
Well, yes. But which: City or County?
[–]CaseFilesReviewer[S]
I'm unable to identify.
I know they have two different police departments [City of Manitowoc Police Department and County Sheriff's Office] but do they use two different garages?
[–]OpenMind4U
OMG!!!
"I connected the white CJ5 Jeep back to a public works Manitowoc employee who drove a non-Interceptor Crown Vic "....what???
City employee?
You're something else!...sooooo persistent and sooo detail oriented....bravo!!!.....
But now you make me THINK hard: city employee, government worker, benefits/knowledge .... hmmmmmm
CONTINUED...
[–]CaseFilesReviewer[S]
DeleteThanks, but this find was just dumb luck; and I even informed KZ of such.
What happened was I went to fix a typo on the Cellular Data Analysis Map I created and for whatever reason I looked into the area further.
Comically, I made the connection as result of the employee being wished happy birthday in an internal employee newsletter.
FYI - You'd be surprise what you can find on the web by simply knowing how search engines work. What happens is IT departments provide internet access to employees but fail to segment off their internet server(s). Subsequently, documents on their intranet enter public domain, thereby, it's perfectly legal to access that search engines' webcrawlers find and index.
[–]OpenMind4U
No such thing as 'dumb luck', my friend...:). Only lottery winning is 'dumb luck'...You've been determined and obsessed all these years with battery issues. You had gut feeling that something is not kosher and you was RIGHT! No 'luck' at all.
This is very bad security issue of this particular IT department. Please trust me, their firewall is not properly build. So, yes, you was 'lucky' because they're DUMB!
[–]J-daddy96
Where does BoD’s buddy Mike work?
[–]tick_tock_manitowoc
Mike O. worked for a plumbing company..oddly enough, a half mile from the Zipperer's.
[–]OpenMind4U
Our blogger gives us interesting clues:
This person is a city employee who has his own CJ5 white Jeep and driving (during the work hours?) non-Interceptor Crown Vic.
I don't think these two clues 'meets' Mike's O....hmmmm....city employee...LE is city employee too. so?.....
[–]black-dog-barks
It's way bigger then a Brady violation if a member of a PD tampered with the evidence. It's a felony subject to prosecution and reason for immediate release of SA, who was a victim of the tampered evidence.. The Zellner team can argue anything involving the SUV (RAV 4) must be tossed as to Fruit of the poisonous tree. SA blood being found in the SUV seals the case for most onlookers. If you remove the SUV as part of the evidence train, you can even follow that the ASY should never have been granted search warrants, and the bones, burn barrel stuff, even go away, leaving zero case against SA.
Zellner could be stymied by the court of appeals in Wisconsin, but they would be be playing with fire if it ever is provnd BoD has done other killings as many of us suspect.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/a10vaa/the_state_knew_of_the_battery_replacement/
Fleet
DeleteManagement
The City of Manitowoc Fleet Division is centrally managed in order to monitor the use of the city’s equipment and to give departments an accurate cost for the use of their equipment. This arrangement also provides for centralized maintenance for all city equipment with a single record keeping system to ensure timely preventative maintenance as well as having skilled mechanics available to perform unexpected repairs.
City Mechanics
The city mechanics are under the Fleet Manager’s supervision and are available for all work under this division. Currently 1.5 mechanics are employed by Maritime Metro Transit, and 2.5 by the Department of Public Works. The city shop is staffed from 7 AM to 5 PM, Monday through Friday.
Internal Service Fund
The city mechanics under the direction of the Fleet Manager operate as an internal service fund (ISF). This fund is sometimes referred to as a motor pool. The goal is for this fund to balance by charging other divisions and departments for their services. This allows users of the ISF to be aware of and manage their costs for mechanized equipment. Other organizations supported by fleet operations include Manitowoc Public Utilities, the Manitowoc Public School District, and Manitowoc County.
Additional Responsibilities
This division also supplies backup support to all functions of the Streets Division for emergency work and is the primary source for harbor and marina work. This division also maintains the city gravel pit and works with the consultants engaged by the Engineering Department toward the environmental remediation of the area.
Surplus Equipment Disposal
It is the policy of the City of Manitowoc Streets & Sanitation Division to auction equipment it is replacing, including police squad cars, construction equipment and light duty utility equipment. These auctions are facilitated by GovDeals, an open auction website specializing in municipal auctions. Access the auctions through the link here: www.govdeals.com. Search for "Manitowoc."
http://www.manitowoc.org/365/Fleet
The key thing is to know what to look for.
ReplyDeleteBatteries sold in the EU must be permanently marked with a means for manufacturers to identify production batches (if needed to recall a defective batch).
This requirement does not extend outside the EU, but as many manufacturers have no idea where batches may end up being sold, most arrange for batteries to include the information either explicitly - often on a label stating clearly the year/month the item left the factory - or in a code which is sometimes buried in a lot of other numbers.
A genuine Bosch silver Battery has a very long number laser etched into the case - such as GBC1110330337 290A 24
Ignore everything on the printed labels.
With batteries what matters is the number laser etched or physically melted as a string of numbers/letters into the case.
To find the month of manufacture ignore the first three letters (GBC) it is the next 3 numbers which will identify when it left the factory.
Then look up the three digit code here
http://aa-boschap-ru.resource.bosch.com/media/commonly_used_media/parts/repairs_and_service/_01072015.pdf
https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/2814/how-do-i-know-when-a-car-battery-was-produced
[–]7-pairs-of-panties
Sounds like you have tried this. There are lot numbers and serial numbers and numbers that the county would keep as well. The county would want/need that info on their battery in case they needed to use the warranty. Actually I would expect that county garages keep impeccable records on parts/supplies. I also bet suppliers keep great records on lot numbers for their batteries shipped and where they are shipped to. If a recall is needed to be put out there, they would want to know what places those batteries in bulk were sent to.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/a46gpy/cop_battery_with_extended_warranty_found_in/
Latest Breakthrough (self.StevenAveryCase)
by CaseFilesReviewer
As indicated in the letter I posted, I identified the battery found in TH's RAV4 to be incorrect and one that fit a Crown Victorian. Yesterday I was able to tie a non-Interceptor Crown Vic, of the model year the used Group Size 58, to a Manitowoc public works employee who owned a white CJ5 Jeep. Thus, I've tied the battery swab and a white Jeep like that seen by a witness following TH's RAV4. Upon finding I forward the information inclusive of the employee's name to KZ. Additionally, as indicated in post made today, I also found the State knew of the battery swap on July 3rd, 2006.
https://www.reddit.com/r/StevenAveryCase/comments/a16n3p/latest_breakthrough/
"Interstate ships to fleets thereby their batteries are one of the few with serial numbers. Unbeknownst to me, until I was updated by KZ's team, Interstate also has an 'batch number' that allows them to track a battery throughout the shipping process."
[–]ShiningLightsx[S]
ReplyDeleteYes, while it’s all speculation, in the most recent tweet from KZ she has alluded to confirming it was a cop battery with extended warranty purchased.
My question is would this sway anyone’s opinion if this was found to be true? Why or why not? As why would they need to move the car to ensure a conviction? Wouldn’t the blood have been enough? Unless of course that was planted also etc.
Well to even know that the battery has an extended warranty, she would have needed to trace it. They go hand in hand. So the issue with what she is saying isn’t that it is vague, it is whether or not it is credible.
I’m not sure how it works in the US, but to have extended warranty on something don’t you need to provide your details?
So you’re telling me in the US if you purchase extended warranty the only thing you have to show and prove that is a receipt? That would most likely degrade within the first year of having it?
How do I google that? It says proof of purchase even in Australia, but if you purchase extended warranty they take your details and it’s saved in their system..
I’m not implying you’re lying, i guess it is of course plausible that America was/is that far behind.
I’m also not implying those records would even still be kept so many years later, just that at one point or another, were they indeed taken if you provide them when purchasing the warranty in the US. It’s a simple question really.
[–]IsASpookyGhost
Here you go. I just googled Interstate battery warranty program.
https://www.interstatebatteries.com/-/media/project/interstate-batteries/final-images/support/warranty-documents/ib_warranty_2016_usenglish.pdf?la=en&hash=7AE145EDEE27F4C45C10E217031257261C5843D1
“Date of Purchase
Your Performance Warranty begins on your date of purchase and extends for the number of months shown on the Chart below. You may establish your date of purchase by presenting the receipt for the purchase of your original battery. Otherwise, your dealer will estimate your date of purchase.”
[–]StonedWater [score hidden]
That's a limited warranty not an extended warranty.
Kathleen Zellner
@ZellnerLaw
Dec 7
Of course RAV-4 had wrong battery—one of those cop batteries w/extended warranty for way more $: just what every 25 yr. old female demands when she switches the perfectly good battery in her Rav4 for one that does not fit. Thanks 💦 #TheWreckingCrew #MakingAMurderer2 #Sopuzzled
[–]StonedWater
Because this extended warranty will have to be noted by the company, else everybody would ring up and say my product has failed but I have an extended warranty. So they will have a database of people that indeed do have an extended warranty.
If it was a basic warranty it would be a time thing and proof of date of purchase would be proof of warranty.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/a46gpy/cop_battery_with_extended_warranty_found_in/
[–]_ScuttleButts
ReplyDeleteThere is such a thing as extended warranties that government departments might get. That would be specified by the sticker not being punched.
This according to my hubby!
Public works would qualify for the extended warranty. They would also drive the model of vehicle that house the batteries.
My hubby said public works. Those aren't cops.
A non police version interceptor. Crown Victoria.
[–]ShiningLightsx[S]
Maybe someone who lives in the US who has purchased extended warranty before could shed some light on this? Or someone in LE who does procurement?
[–]Cestrella426
Usually, if you buy a battery or part for a car at an auto parts store, they ask you for a phone number to attach the purchase to you in some way. That way if you bring in a dead battery, they can confirm you purchased it and that it is still under warranty. Having said that, most car batteries are not coded with individual serial numbers, so I'm not sure how you would reverse search a battery to find who purchased it. I could be wrong, but that's the experience I've had purchasing car parts.
[–]ShiningLightsx[S]
Great point, it would be hard to reverse search it if it had no serial number on it/identifying factor. It will be interesting to see what has made KZ confident she has confirmed the extended warranty on it.
Though unlikely, I wonder if LE assetize replacement items like this? Someone did mention that in their experience some batteries have a serial number with an example being when replaced by AAA.
20th of December can’t come soon enough lol
[–]dirge_real
Every product in the US has a unique manufacturing number on it. Batteries especially do, as they have recyclable materials and special requirements for disposal, so they tend to be tracked.
[–]InHosName-Amen
I understand and it's possible a tip rolled in and followed up further. She has provided more information on the battery than the Reddit poster did.
The case files is huge. Something like 50k pages and who knows how many documents. The few DCI files, for the most part, came from Zellner's filings. The good folks here who crowd sourced for FOIA requests were denied by WISDOJ because they said it's an on-going investigation.
I do get amped up when Zellner says she's going to file something and hope there a few more nuggets in the filing we can sift through.
[–]AKEnglish35
TH was AMBUSHED by the real killer /planter...when he took the RAV back (after he "burnt" the body), he planted it at this ambush site, so he could retrieve his black van.....the site had evidence about what happened. LE couldn't have the RAV found here because of this evidence, so they moved it to ASY. Battery was either 100% dead and unjumpable or was missing!
[–]StonedWater
TH was AMBUSHED by the real killer /planter...when he took the RAV back (after he "burnt" the body)
Eh? So he burnt the body then ambushed TH?
[–]AKEnglish35
"When he took the RAV back, AFTER he burnt the body"........No..ambushed her...drove the RAV to Zander Rd ("burnt" her) then dumped the RAV back at ambush site so he could pick up his vehicle!
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/a46gpy/cop_battery_with_extended_warranty_found_in/
New Zellner Tweet - Battery (self.TickTockManitowoc)
ReplyDeleteby aurelius1980
Let’s see you are 25 yrs. old making a tad above minimum wage, your car battery is still under warranty, but you insist Toy. dealer install the wrong battery & charge you way more for a 75 month extended warranty. Why???? To impress your friends???? #MakingAMurderer2 5:13 AM · Dec 13, 2018 · Twitter for iPhone
Interesting, TH’s battery was still under warranty too
[–]krappie
One thing that I'm confused on: How did KZ obtain a serial number or batch number when neither one appears to be in the photos or in the case documents, and she doesn't have access to the car yet?
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
KZ would have photos above & beyond those entered into evidence by the State.
The DNA lab, in their presentation (Exhibit 339), also used photos that weren't entered as Exhibit photos.
The batch number is something that Interstate gave KZ. I surmise it's a number assigned when Interstate is shipping a batch of batteries to a location.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
Clearly, KZ traced the battery since the "75 month extended warranty" wasn't known:
I knew the battery could be traced, Interstate's normal warranty is 18 months, and the battery found in TH's RAV4 was manufactured in October 04' thereby within its 18 month warranty period when found. However, the "75 month extended warranty" was unknown to me and could have only been obtained from Interstate.
For the record, since I've been asked multiple times, KZ did not share the name associated to the battery nor was I expecting. KZ did share the serial number and batch number traces were both successful. The batch number is an Interstate internal number used to track batch shipments. That information was also clearly from Interstate given I didn't know of such a number nor is marked on the battery.
Interstate ships to locations with fleets, who use Fleet Management Systems, thereby why Interstate batteries have unique serial numbers. In fact, Interstate is one of the few battery manufactures that engrave serial numbers into their batteries.
The battery found in TH's RAV4 was clearly a fleet battery, which are shipped & warrantied directly from Interstate, as evident by the warranty sticker. On retail purchases the retailer denotes month & year of purchase by punching the warranty sticker. KZ wouldn't have been able to know someone purchased a "75 month extended warranty" without obtaining the information from Interstate or the warranty holder. Thus, in the absence of KZ contacting the warranty holder directly the information could have only been obtained by tracing the battery with Interstate.
Why should anyone believe Interstate can't trace their batteries, Interstate doesn't know who purchased extended warranties through their company, and Interstate doesn't know where they ship batteries? If Interstate doesn't know any of that information, how can they facilitate companies with fleets or manage extended warranties?
Frankly, KZ finding of the extended warranty purchase is problematic for the warranty holder. In fact, Interstate's ability to trace there batteries is problematic for the battery's owner.
CONTINUED...
[–]I-XLR8
DeleteThe 75 month extended warranty info is huge. Correct if i am wrong, but the warranty info would have to be filled out and sent back to Interstate Battery for the warranty to be valid. That means the VIN number of the vehicle it was installed on would be known to Interstate Battery. Fleet Maintenance would also have a record of who that particular car was assigned to and when (I happen to know this) and generally, the cop who is assigned a vehicle is responsible for getting the car to fleet maintenance for regular check ups. If cops don't keep their appointments for maintenance, they will be reprimanded and can have their car taken away.
[–]CaseFilesReviewer
I would imagine applying for extended for warranty requires a name. I certainly know when I purchased extended warranties name was required.
I doubt the VIN number would be on the warranty but a Fleet Management System would be able to trace the battery to vehicle. Thus, if KZ subpoenas the database the vehicle associated to the battery would become known.
Honestly, KZ would love for LE to now attempt to cover up the battery since doing so would make the State's prior evidence knowingly false:
If LE now claims they installed the battery for reason, such as to move the car at the lab, the photo evidence of the disconnected battery becomes knowingly false. Subsequently, KK's "sweaty" DNA evidence also becomes knowingly false. Thus, why KZ would love for LE to now claim the battery was installed for reason.
KK's "sweaty" DNA evidence, as alluded to in season 2 of the documentary, is problematic for the State given it reveals knowledge of the source. The swab was never tested for source cells thereby its source shouldn't have been known. Subsequently, KK's "sweaty" knowledge will likely come back to bite which is likely why KZ keeps Tweets of "sweaty" KK.
https://old.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/a5rs1r/new_zellner_tweet_battery/
[–]fightlinker
ReplyDeleteThe fire or lack of fire is one of those things that drives you crazy because if you can't factually confirm that then what the hell can we really know for certain?
[–]Lonely_Crouton
i don’t believe anything from the cops
the rav blood could be heinz ketchup and the hairdo csi woman could just say it was blood
[–]fightlinker
I've had my doubts about the bones in SA's pit. All that material and only one fragment can be confirmed, with partial loci no less? Always seemed sketchy af to me, especially with the collection and chain of custody issues and other questionable results coming out of that crime lab.
[–]Bellarinna69
When I first got into this case, the bones are what solidified SA’s and BD’s innocence in my mind. It was the fact that LE didn’t take pictures. They didn’t meticulously sift through, make a graph of the area..notate every single thing they found and where. It makes absolutely no sense and there is no reasonable explanation for it whatsoever.
I said awhile back that my 9 (now 10) year old daughter would know how important it is to take pictures of that area. If my child has the sense of how crucial that is, how can anyone believe for one second that LE just made a “mistake??” They don’t even acknowledge it as a mistake come to think about it. It doesn’t make any kind of sense and yet, somehow it was deemed not only acceptable but actual evidence that was used to convict two innocent people. It is disgusting.
So here we have the supposed scene of TH’s burnt remains and the sound of LE’s voices ringing about justice for the victim in our ears. They treat “said remains” like actual trash and don’t even prove they are human let alone the victims. No pictures, not even a semblance of a protocol followed..banning the coroner from doing her job, yet letting the victims ex boyfriend prance around the crime scene like a homicide detective...and...they got away with it.
Hopefully not for long. Everything about this case screams corruption. Everything about this case shows us the immense cracks in our justice system but then again, that’s the problem, isn’t it? Why would the “powers that be” want to reform a system where they can literally get away with anything they want, investigate themselves, find themselves innocent of any wrongdoing and end up with promotions and awards when all is said and done?
The answer? They wouldn’t. That is yet another travesty and anyone that argues the other side and refuses to see the blatantly obvious corruption that goes all the way to the top..well..they either have something to lose (like LE) or they are blind sheep that won’t wake up until they realize that they are being herded by the boy that cried wolf. (That last sentence made sense in my head but this rant made me a bit delirious so...God..this case...)
https://old.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/a8c3bu/so_now_we_have_steve_brendan_and_barb_denying_the/
Why would KZ be unable to use issues related to the battery in her brief?
ReplyDelete[–]J4_C4
Same reason she couldn't use the cell phone pings as an alibi for Steven. It's information that should have been available at the time of trial. Not to mention she can't add new evidence to her brief unless she gets permission which it doesn't appear she has done.
[–]Umbopus
She can add whatever she wants. The Court of Appeals don’t decide on the specific arguments, they decide on the overall status.
Last time the COA flicked it back to the Circuit Court with orders. That included reviewing the supplemental information Zellner had added.
She can add new content to add to the weight of the case’s merit. The COA won’t say ‘hey, that battery stuff is mega, let that Steve guy go home’ but they will say ‘the judge needs to review this’ or ‘there should be oral arguments about this’ etc.
She may only be able to make her post-conviction case with ‘new information’ but that doesn’t mean she can’t argue like hell with information old and new.
[–]J4_C4
They kicked it back to the trial court because Zellner filed a motion to supplement the record. She didn't do that this time so she will not be adding any new evidence into her brief.
[–]boneymau
She can add whatever she wants to her brief, and it will get picked up and reported in the media. Whether the court accepts it or not is a different issue.
[–]J4_C4
Whether the court accepts it or not is a different issue.
This is all that matters.
[–]dorothydunnit
Sorry if i missed something, but why not?
[–]J4_C4
She would need to supplement the record and she never did this.
[–]DominantChord
I don’t get this. She needs permission to what? She could easily discuss the battery thing. She could argue it is a Brady, as those examining the car did not notify that the battery was from someone else than TH’s RAV
[–]J4_C4
There is no proof there was a Brady violation. The defense would have had the report of Wiegert inquiring about the battery. Just because it wasn't looked into further doesn't make it a Brady violation.
[–]dorothydunnit
I still don't get it. I must have missed something in previous posts. Why can't she add these things to her brief? Isn't adding things the whole point of using new evidence?
[–]J4_C4
Generally speaking the appellate court examines the record of evidence presented in the trial court and the law that the lower court applied and decides whether that decision was legally sound or not. If the appellate court finds no defect, it "affirms" the judgment. If the appellate court does find a legal defect in the decision "below" (i.e., in the lower court), it may "modify" the ruling to correct the defect, or it may nullify ("reverse" or "vacate") the whole decision or any part of it. It may, in addition, send the case back ("remand" or "remit") to the lower court for further proceedings to remedy the defect. New evidence will usually only be considered on appeal in "very" rare instances, for example if that material evidence was unavailable to a party for some very significant reason such as prosecutorial misconduct. To add new evidence at this point she would need to supplement the record to have the trial court consider if the new evidence is relevant. She never supplemented the record so she will not be adding new information.
SA did not insert the wrong size battery in the RAV4 at ASY. The wrong size battery is direct evidence that the RAV4 left ASY before it was officially re-discovered there on 11/5/05. It is a trail that directly leads to the “Manitowoc Framing” and the illegal transportation of the car under the cover of darkness 11/4-11/5.
ReplyDeleteMarch 7, 2006: we propose that this specific moment, the fax from Curt Judson on 3/7/06 not 7/3/06, defines when MW and TF discovered the full truth about the illegal transportation of TH’s RAV4 back onto the Avery Salvage Yard, and especially AC’s direct involvement in it.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K1IyTPNYDIKntoUkoM4PVd7D5Uh047ya/view
If our hypothesis is correct then, what could be called a “change of heart” moment, the moment in which TF and MW discover the truth about the illegal transportation of the RAV4 and the person(s) responsible for it, was on March 7, 2006, somewhen between 9.00 am and 3.36 pm.
In the range of these six and a half hours, TF and MW understood the truth about one cold night in November.
And this truth triggered a chain of events that defined the entire ` investigation´ of this case from then on.
If this hypothesis were true then the investigation from that point on should show one or all of the following reactions:
Some bona fide panic
Further desperate attempts to fictionally corroborate BD’s “confession” at any cost
Drastic and illegal measures to connect SA with the hood or hood latch (maybe via DNA?), possibly by TF and MW themselves
An attempt to pressure BD into confirming that SA disconnected the battery and he, not anybody else, unscrewed the license plates.
As we are going to demonstrate all four reactions happen in the course of the investigation after March 7, 2006, and in a most obvious manner, too.
Yet March first shows us another hiatus, between the March 7 discovery and later events, and it does so for a clear reason. MW and TF manage to keep their anxiety and growing panic under the lid, because there is something they have to await.
The person who removed the license plates is also very probably the person who changed and disconnected the battery – but NO DNA will be found during future testing.
This swapping of swabs (hood latch and groin swabs) could have easily happened after the March 1 interrogation, when “the hood” re-entered the stage of this farcical tragedy – but it didn’t. It did not take place until early April.
Why?
We propose, it could not and did not happen earlier because it was the March 7 discovery that set in motion the chain of events leading towards those desperate measures.
https://old.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/ecug80/one_cold_night_in_november_part_iii/
MW and TF re-enter the room, following MoK’s advice and continue their interrogation, which, from then on, works much more smoothly. At page 83 MW uses an established trick and introduces the car battery by a random throw-in question, completely out of context, during a discussion where of all places DNA could be found around the ASY:
Deletehttps://imgur.com/oWpz9X9
But BD who otherwise, during earlier interrogations, always nods and confirms doesn’t do that now. He says – truthfully – “Not that I know of”.
BD by now is fully aware that those officers are manipulating him, that he is played by all sides involved, quite like an instrument. He cannot really stop or prevent it, but he shows, during the May 13 interrogation, as much resistance as humanly possible – for a boy like him in a situation like that and with nobody except himself to protect him.
The body language of TF at the very moment is quite telling. He makes zero notes on his pad about any of the questions (and answers) leading to the battery reference. He writes something down in between, off-synch, obviously not something BD said, but apart from that his hand rests on the table, under tension. He is looking at BD, waiting.
Although MW tries to let it appear very, very casual, this seems to be a pivotal moment. Only, it is not paying off the way they expected it to.
5 pages and several minutes later BD confirms again, what he already has admitted to earlier, that SA opened the hood and took off the license plates: https://imgur.com/egCkAcO
During the later stage of this interrogation MW and TF begin to realize and start to accept, that BD is not their secret weapon anymore, when it comes to hide and cover the “Manitowoc framing” they unwillingly put right into spotlight, because this May interview has been arranged too late. Their parrot has started resisting, and “Brendan the confirmer” has since changed into “Brendan the reluctant”.
The young boy is doomed nevertheless.
MW and TF, for more than two months of mindless maneuvers, did all they could to undo their grave mistake in the March 1 interrogation, which they probably discovered not until 6 days later.
They created a reason to re-interview BD, they created an imaginary hood latch swab purportedly containing SA’s DNA, they employed a prison snitch and may have even recommended (an unproven allegation so far) an investigator to LK, who is working on their behalf.
They did everything they could to step out of the shadow of March 7 and shield their colleagues and themselves.
Their part in “operation save our necks” is over. Now all they can do is hope and pray.
The only one, who can help them now, is god. Or somebody who in his delusions of grandeur thinks he is one.
DeleteEnter Kenneth R. Kratz.
We do think that, when it comes to TH’s car, there were two different LE framings, a “Manitowoc framing” and a “Calumet Framing” which ran independently, in parallel, up to a certain point in time, when both framings joined and became one “operation save our necks”.
The explanations our hypothesis provides:
A solution, why the hood latch and the battery did not play a role yet in November 2005 and not until February 2006
Why both became so important since April 2006
A solution, why MW and TF waited until early April 2006 for using the groins swab(s)
A solution why the editing of the flyover video was necessary, and why photos of the tire tracks on November 5th are existing after all.
A causal explanation for the existence of the KA statement (letter) and the OJ statement (including the headboard stuff)
A causal explanation why the May 13 interrogation was necessary in the first place
A possible driving motor for the entire chain of events from February 27, 2006, onwards
A causal explanation for KK’s extremely reluctant, avoiding treatment of hood latch and battery during both relevant trials.
We refrained from incorporating the newly discovered vast amount of dispatch calls, and the photographic information about what will become known as the “Kuss road re-staging”, simply because at this stage nobody has any substantial overview yet and we did not want our work to degenerate into pure guess work.
It will be very interesting and exciting to see, if those newer discoveries fit or conflict with our hypothesis.
There’s no doubt, that all of us will learn a lot about the case by that, either way.
https://old.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/ecui53/one_cold_night_in_november_part_iv/