Kelly Pitzen Luedeke is a public school teacher in Wisconsin
Kelly Pitzen and Ryan Hillegas are key players. They phoned each other, for what appears to be the first time, in the days leading up to Teresa Halbach's disappearance. They called each other again on November 3rd, the day Teresa was reported missing. They were at Teresa's house together that same evening.
DCI agent Tom Fassbender wrote that Kelly advised him that Teresa "was one of her best girlfriends forever." And Kelly told him that she and Teresa shared a cousin on the Halbach side.
Is there a report that documents where Teresa's day planner page came from and how it came to be in possession by the police?
Here is Kelly Pitzen’s statement (excerpt) on which Kathleen Zellner’s theory is based:
Pitzen’s full statement about Ryan Hillegas having the schedule and calling a number on it (page 91 of Zellner’s October 2017 Motion - Exhibits):
Pitzen’s statement about RH calling a number on the schedule makes no sense. The Sippel-Schmitz appointment in New Holstein doesn’t appear on the handwritten day planner:
This post is about the fact that the phone call Ryan Hillegas made would have been to Sippel-Schmitz, and that information was not on the day planner.
The call RH made was to Sippel-Schmitz and hence Pitzen’s testimony about the source of the ‘New Holstein stop’ is inaccurate.
Read Pitzen's full statement (page 91). Pitzen states that RH first phones a New Holstein number (Steven Schmitz in New Holstein) and then Scott Bloedorn phones another number.
Pitzen has no reason to state ‘New Holstein’ other than that she knows this from the appointment sheet or from the person they phoned saying so.
So Pitzen means Sippel-Schmitz.
I don’t think we have to strictly state that Zellner’s claims about RH having the handwritten planner on the afternoon of November 3 means she’s tying it to him retrieving it when the RAV4 was found.
Pitzen’s claims are from late afternoon of November 3, whereas the car can’t have been found till the night of November 3 or on November 4. Most logic points to the car being found on the afternoon of November 4, which I’m sure Zellner agrees with. So, hence, Zellner's accusations that RH had the handwritten planner on the afternoon of November 3 mean that her theory about ‘RH and the planner’ is separate from her theory about the car planting.
Again, I don’t think Zellner is necessarily stating ‘RH could only have made that call from the handwritten planner; rather, I think her interpretation of Pitzen’s statement must be that the handwritten planner is in his possession at that time because he made a call from it.
But my concern is that perhaps Zellner’s team hasn’t connected the dots that the ‘New Holstein’ call RH made was to Schmitz and hence cannot be from the handwritten notes on TH's day planner.
So deducing that RH had the handwritten copy at that time, because Pitzen says he made a call from it, is inaccurate logic since the call RH made was in fact to Schmitz.
I don’t think Pitzen is misremembering the call RH made: the ‘New Holstein’ detail she gives about the call is too accurate; she is remembering that correctly, I believe.
I am claiming that Pitzen is misstating where RH sourced the ‘New Holstein stop’ information from, because it is not possible that anyone could phone a New Holstein number based on the handwritten day planner.
The handwritten day planner references ‘Steve Sheboygan,’ which is Speckman; and Pitzen is not claiming RH (or Scott Bloedorn) phoned a Sheboygan number. Pitzen is claiming RH phoned a New Holstein number (Schmitz) and Scott Bloedorn a Manitowoc number (Zipperer.) And I’m not refuting that Scott Bloedorn called Speckman in Sheboygan at some point (this is well documented).
But Pitzen mentions two calls:
1. RH to New Holstein (Sippel-Schmitz) - the phone number had to have come from the Autotrader fax sheet or from TH's phone records, but Pitzen’s statement leads me to believe it came from the fax sheet.
2. Scott Bloedorn to Manitowoc (George Zipperer) - the phone number could have come from either the Autotrader fax sheet or from TH's phone records, but Pitzen’s statement says it came from the phone records.
Here’s the clincher though: Pitzen says that they called the Manitowoc number because it ‘was an Autotrader number,’ which means they definitely had the October 31st fax sheet at that time.
Hence, my belief that that they used the October 29th fax sheet to make the New Holstein call to Sippel-Schmitz.
Scott Bloedorn calls Steven Speckman at some point, yes, but Pitzen never refers to this call.
Pitzen only refers to Sippel-Schmitz and Zipperer calls in her statement. As such, the handwritten day planner is not the source of either of Pitzen’s statement calls.
This is a murky question depending on where you stand with believing Wiegert at various stages of the investigation.
Wiegert's report, from the same time frame that Pitzen is referring to, indicates they did have incoming calls on her phone records that afternoon.
Personally, the tone of this early Wiegert report gives me the vibe that he’s fairly honestly reporting facts at this stage; that this is your garden variety factual police report.
I tend to believe Wiegert gets swept up in the tide of corruption at a later date. His initial attitude in the early days of the investigation appeared to be genuine and honest.
e.g. We hear him on a call saying he thinks Zipperer was after Avery. This is clearly before he starts playing into the dodgy and sneaky antics to frame Steven.
So I take that report as pretty pure and hence I feel there were incoming calls on the phone records. Others will disagree that nothing Wiegert says should ever be believed.
Notes:
a) It has been debated whether the ‘password’ story is even true. There are strong theories that RH/SB actually phoned Cingular and procured unlawful access to Teresa’s account, etc., which would explain why the miracle password story sounds so off. It would also explain why they had such comprehensive records, etc.
b) The Speckman calls are, in general, a mystery. Many question their validity/existence because they’re conspicuously absent from reports and records, etc. So that should be noted too.
I definitely don’t rule out that Kelly Pitzen might have some knowledge of the framing and it has contributed to her muddled details.
I believe a group was with RH at the vehicle in the Colborn call, hence RH hollering ‘the car’s here!’ to others: it makes sense Pitzen was part of that group.
We really have no reason to believe it was RH at all. He’s certainly a candidate, anyone that was an accessory to the car planting is a candidate.
Obviously, those 22 weird calls on his phone records point to him assisting with the planting, so he goes on the list of people that might have removed the day planner from the RAV4 (if that is, in fact, how it was obtained). But to be honest I don’t completely rule out other versions of events where Teresa made it home too (there isn’t really enough info around these topics to have a clear theory).
So honestly, this post has only one point to it: Pitzen’s statement is definitely muddled one way or another because the ‘New Holstein’ call RH made was Schmitz and that information is not on the day planner.
Fassbender wrote that Teresa "had been a childhood friend" of Kelly's and that "they went to school together right up to college and then kept in touch through college" (Teresa went to University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, and Kelly went to University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, the same school Ryan Hillegas attended).
The following is a summary of Kelly's calls to Teresa's cell phone (call duration in parentheses). Teresa never called Kelly's cell phone number ending in 3588 from her own cell phone in 2005, which strongly indicates that Teresa had another cell phone that she used for personal communications.
On October 28th, Ryan called Kelly, who, after talking to Ryan, seemed determined to get in touch with Teresa.
Kelly called Teresa three times on the night of October 28th. The first call went to voicemail. The next two calls appear to be three-way calls initiated by Kelly.
A bartender who was an acquaintance of Kelly called CASO dispatch and said that Kelly and Teresa were at his bar around midnight on Saturday, which could have been Friday night, which became Saturday at midnight.
John Dedering, retired detective for the Calumet County Sheriff's Office (CASO), opened a new investigation into the Halbach case in 2017, and as part of the 2017 investigation he interviewed Kelly Pitzen.
The following images are excerpts from the CASO reports filed by Dedering in 2017.
In August 2005, Kelly and Teresa went on a road trip through central Wisconsin, according to Kelly's November 13, 2005, interview with Post Crescent.
Hillegas and Pitzen said they cannot look enough at the photographs Halbach leaves behind, the world seen through their lost friend’s eyes.
“I look at the pictures on her walls,” said Pitzen, “and I know the story behind every one of them.”
Pitzen said her friendship with Halbach goes back to preschool. She said she will always remember her friend’s smile, her sincerity, her willingness to drop everything when someone needed her.
“I want others to know that Teresa was always the kind of person that people just gravitated toward,” Pitzen said. “She was always bubbly and smiling. And she was always there to listen. If you didn’t go to her for advice, you could be sure she would search you down.”
To a person, Halbach’s friends also fondly remembered another surprising trait, one that says something about her enthusiasm for life and which made each of them laugh as they explained.
Halbach could not resist a karaoke stage. She was fabulous, Pitzen and Hillegas recalled, and became an absolute ham when she took the stage.
“I think she liked the freedom it gave her,” Hillegas said. “She’d dance and point and play the character of the person in the song. We’re all going to do a karaoke in her honor.”
Sarah Kluthnow lives in Chicago but has remained close to Halbach since the two met in college in Green Bay.
“I’ll never forget her genuineness, her sincerity, and how she honestly loved people,” Kluth said Saturday. “And she was such a faithful friend. I remember once I had to visit dairy farms for my job and I called Teresa and asked if she would go along and take some photographs. And there she was with her camera tromping through manure with me. It was just so cool to have a friend like that, who would laugh and say, I don’t care where we are or what we’re doing, I’m with you and that’s what is important.’ “
So powerful was the connection Halbach had with her friends that many of them have spent the last couple of weeks tirelessly searching for her.
Hillegas has done nothing else. He was the one who organized the searches and spent long days afield looking for his friend. It was what she would have done, he said.
The search is over now, of course. And updated news on the search has been replaced on the family’s Web page with a poignant summation.
“It seems as though we have achieved our goal of finding Teresa,” the note reads. “The hearts of our family go out to everyone who has a missing loved one or have had to cope with the murder of a family friend . . . We know we will see Teresa again in Heaven.”
Is Sarah Kluth the "Sarah" on Teresa's day planner (image above)? Why would Karen Halbach have Sarah's stuff? Was Sarah at the Halbach party on October 30, 2005?
Kelly, what else do you and Ryan Hillegas know about Teresa Halbach's disappearance?
If TH was privy to the plan to frame SA, she would've left his appointments until last in the day, and then she would have turned off her phone, just in case this would be the day SA had no alibi. This is what she did on those ASY Mondays. #MakingAMurdererhttps://t.co/NAwxhpZ8aP
What if? TH's family had her committed and their connections in high places decided to use the opportunity to "make" a murderer. There are claims of people being held against their will and drugged at the very same place as Carol's letter about TH at WMHI.https://t.co/uJubGmRUrl
CASO investigator John Dedering, far right, behind Steven Avery
CASO DETECTIVE DEDERING'S REPORT OF CONTACT WITH RACHEL ON NOVEMBER 4, 2005
The following is investigator John Dedering's report of his phone conversation with Rachel of AutoTrader after she called the Calumet County Sheriff's Office (CASO) about a rumor she overhead.
TYPE OF ACTIVITY: Contact with Rachel J. Haggs
DATE OF ACTIVITY: 11/04/05
REPORTING OFFICER: Inv. John Dedering
DOCUMENTS
GENERATED: None
On Friday, 11/04/05 at 1100 hrs., Captain PAUL RUSCH brought me information regarding a
phone call he had taken from RACHEL HAGGSwho was employed with AUTO TRADER. I
did call the phone number for AUTO TRADER (414-425-8675) and did speak with the
following individual: RACHEL J. HAGGS DOB 11/24/85
190 W. Allerton Ave.
Milwaukee, WI 53207
Cell No. 262-391-2074
Ms. HAGGS advised me that someone named DAWN who works at AUTO TRADER stated she had overheard that STEVEN AVERY had called on yesterday's date (11/03/05) between 4:30 and 5:00 p.m. approximately, because STEVEN needed to reschedule the appointment with the photographer. STEVEN indicated that the photographer had not made the scheduled meeting on
Monday, 10/31/05.
According to RACHEL, STEVEN indicated that the photographer (TERESA HALBACH) had
called and indicated that she could not make the Monday appointment.
According to RACHEL, there is a record for an appointment with JANDA on the 31st of
October. RACHEL went on to indicate that STEVEN stated TERESA had contacted him on
Monday about this matter.
RACHEL indicated that a subject named SCOTT had called STEVEN regarding TERESA
HALBACH and, apparently, was under the impression STEVEN was not happy about "being
accused of stuff." RACHEL went on to indicate that she had learned STEVEN AVERY had made inappropriate
comments to TERESA in the past and further had come out of the house on a previous occasion
wearing only a towel.
Investigation continues.
DCI AGENT MCGRATH'S REPORT OF CONTACT WITH RACHEL ON DECEMBER 1, 2005
The following excerpt is from an attachment to Kathleen Zellner's PCR petition. It is a report of DCI agent Neil McGrath's interview with Rachel of Auto Trader Magazine on December 1, 2005.
On Thursday 12/01/2005, Special Agent McGrath went to the Auto Trader Magazine office located at Hales Corners. S/A McGrath had previously arranged an appointment with Office Manager Angie Schuster. S/A McGrath arrived at Auto Trader at approximately 3:45 p.m.
Upon arriving at the Auto Trader Magazine office S/A McGrath interviewed Rachel [blacked out]. Rachel stated that she had been working at Auto Trader magazine for approximately six to seven months and was a Production/Customer Service Representative. Rachel recalled speaking with an individual who identified himself as Steve Avery on approximately Thursday 11/03/2005. Rachel stated that earlier on that same day Teresa Halbach's mother had contacted the Auto Trader Magazine office and was concerned about Halbach's whereabouts. Avery called the office approximately two hours after Halbach's mother, possibly between 3:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m.Avery told Rachel that he had an appointment of a van and a truck to be photographed on 10/31/2005, however he had contacted Halbach on that day to see if she was still coming and she told him that she was heading in a different direction. Avery told Rachel that Halbach instructed him to contact the office to reschedule the appointment. Avery also told Rachel that he had been contacted by a male individual who identified himself as Teresa Halbach's roommate. This individual told Avery that he knew Halbach had been to his residence to take photographs and that they believed Avery had done something to Halbach. Avery stated that he did not appreciate being accused by this person. Avery had the number of this individual on caller I.D. and told Rachel he would call her back with this number. Avery stated that he did not appreciate being accused by this person. Rachel stated she looked on the computer and did not see a record of Steven Avery having an appointment and stated that she would look into it.
Approximately five to ten minutes later, Avery re-contacted Rachel at Auto Trader Magazine and gave her the number of the individual who had called. Rachel state that she wrote the number down on a Post-It note and contacted Calumet county at a later time asking for the person in charge of the Teresa Halbach investigation. This individual had to call Rachel back because the individual was on the phone at the time.Rachel stated she gave the investigator who called her the information about Avery calling her.
Rachel stated this contact was the first she believed she spoke with Steve Avery on the phone. Rachel is aware who Steven Avery was because Halbach had mentioned to Rachel on the telephone that Avery was "creey." Halbach had told Rachel that on at least two occasions when Halbach arrived at the Avery property to shoot photographs of vehicles, Avery came out of his residence dressed only in a bath towel. Halbach joked with Rachel that Avery was not the type of person you wanted to see dressed in only a towel. Halbach had also mentioned to Rachel that Avery had showed her some kind of display having to do with females that was posted on his wall. This display was of pictures or names and phone numbers of females, possibly Avery's girlfriends. Avery said to Halbach in a confident manner that some day she would be up on the wall as well. Rachel did not believe Halbach was alarmed by this comment, however thought it was strange. Rachel did not get the indication that Halbach viewed Avery as more of a harmless old man who was "a little out there." Rachel has only spoken with Halbach by telephone and had never met her in person, however, felt she knew Halbach well from frequent conversations.
FORMER AUTOTRADER EMPLOYEE RACHEL'S STORIES
Why did Rachel's story change on December 1st, nearly a month after she contacted the Calumet County Sheriff's Office (CASO)?
In her initial interview with Dedering (when Rachel called CASO to report on rumors she had heard), Rachel said she was told about a phone call that Dawn overheard. A month later, she told McGrath that she was the person who took the call. She went from spreading gossip to being a witness.
Dawn didn't mention anything about overhearing this call earlier in the day when Wiegert interviewed her by phone on the evening of November 3 (CASO page 20). If Avery had called earlier that day, she would have told Wiegert.
The first story by Rachel sounds like gossip; the second sounds like she wants to get involved with the trial.
Basically, there are two problems with Rachel's stories (other than the fact she told two versions of the same story), which is probably why Rachel's statements were not used at trial. There is the obvious hearsay -- she is reporting what someone else said they overheard. Then there is the fact it is a phone call. If the person taking the call recognized it as Avery's voice, perhaps it would be admissible. But if the person is not familiar with Avery's voice and could not identify the voice on the phone as such, then it would be inadmissible because the witness cannot say for sure it was Avery who called.
If Avery had made the call, special prosecutor Ken Kratz would have presented evidence of this at trial, but he didn't.
Avery did not call AutoTrader on November 3, 2005, according to his phone records.
Additionally, according to Zellner: "Steven Avery never spoke with Teresa's roommate, Scott Bloedorn, on November 3, 2005 or any other day. Law enforcement investigated these allegations and determined they were false."
Rachel was not called to testify, so it must have been clear to the prosecution that they could not use her statements. It was also clear to the prosecution that whoever called AutoTrader on November 3 to complain about Scott Bloedorn would be very important to their investigation, and law enforcement knew this because they questioned George Zipperer about this phone call.
Rachel's statements are inadmissible as hearsay but in the court of public opinion reports of this call would go a long way toward convincing people that Avery is guilty.
In books written by Michael Greisbach and Ken Kratz, they perpetuated the lie started by Rachel that Steven Avery called AutoTrader on November 3 and said Teresa Halbach never made it to Avery Auto Salvage on October 31, 2005.
In Greisbach's book he wrote: "On November 3, Avery called Auto Trader and told them that the photographer had not made the scheduled appointment at the salvage yard on October 31. He said Halbach notified him by phone that she wouldn't be able to make it after all." On page 163 of Kratz's book he wrote: "Steven (Avery) tells Scott Bloedorn, Teresa's roommate, that Teresa 'never showed up' for her appointment on Oct. 31 and is upset that he was even contacted in connection with the disappearance."
Kathleen Zellner, Avery's post-conviction counsel, identified 13 falsehoods in Kratz's book. She told Patch in July 2011: "We're consulting with defamation experts about the viability of a legal claim against Kratz. He has no absolute immunity. This guy is off the case, and he's still running around committing defamation against Steven Avery, essentially trying him in the press with even more false evidence, which is what he did the first time with his false (2006 pre-trial) press conference statements."
Answer me this...how can anyone's statement of "he said she never showed up" have any merit, when Avery was doing television interviews on Nov. 4th (before Bobby "buggered up that plan")?
IS FORMER AUTOTRADER EMPLOYEE RACHEL'S NAME ACTUALLY RACHEL ANN HAAG AND NOT RACHEL J. HAGGS?
There are no public records for a Rachel Haggs or a Rachel Hagg but there are public records for four people named Rachel Haag in Wisconsin. Rachel K. Haag (34 years old), Rachel Ann Haag (38 years old, born 1/1/1979), Rachel R. Hagg (38 years old), and Rachel Marie Haag (60 years old).
None of the four people named Rachel Haag in Wisconsin were born in 1985 (Dedering reported Rachel's birth date as 11/24/1985, which would make her 32 years old as of October 2017).
INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS
The following is McGrath's DCI report for his November 6, 2005 activity. It is an example of proper official documentation of an investigation, unlike the reports that were filed by CASO. However, it should be noted that the report was edited by McGrath's supervisor on November 30, 2005, just before it was turned over to Fassbender and received into evidence by Ken Kratz.
The suspicion is that investigative reports were falsified to fit the narrative.
If all the CASO reports were copied into one big Word document, what would have prevented someone from editing the file to change one or more of the reports?
Shouldn't each CASO report have the date the report was written and the date the report was last edited (and by whom), like the DCI reports?
None of the CASO reports include the date they were prepared, only the "date of activity" that they are reporting on. It would be helpful to know how much time had elapsed between the event or activity and the date the report was written (there really should be an audit trail for LE report writing).
Were all the deputies/detectives/investigators with CASO told to copy their reports onto CD so that they could be given to Kratz in electronic format? Did Kratz then copy and paste the reports into a Word file and edit them to fit his narrative?
Who would have stopped Kratz from doing this? He had prosecutorial immunity. He had free rein.
"I further assume that you would be too 'embarrassed' by my continued involvement in assisting DOJ in the Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey post-conviction matters -- I want to hear you ask me to step aside from those duties as well, and make sure that Roy is ready to appoint additional resources to assist Tom Fallon in the conclusion of this mamouth prosecution."
Guilters. You love projects to show SA is guilty...do me a favor. Find one single solitary document that TH told anyone that "Steven Avery" was who answered the door in a towel. Anything where she said those words to anyone. Thanks. Good luck, you'll need it. #missionimpossible
I think I have figured out where much of this confusion
comes from. What it comes down to, is people don't listen.
I've always had a knack for language. When somebody's
scribbles at the office are unreadable, they bring it to me. I also hear really
well, like when someone has a foreign accent or other speaking problem.
Many months back, I listened to a recording of Steven Avery being
interviewed, and this is where he supposedly denied there was a fire. However,
I listened to the entire interview, and I didn't misunderstand Avery at all. He
did not lie about anything.
There are a couple of complicating factors. First, these
Keystone Cops keep using the same technique of trying to introduce confusion
into the conversation. Their intended goal is to trip the interviewee up.
Instead though, when you listen back to the interviewer, they are jumping all
over the place and making the conversation very mixed up.
I think this may even be a lazy version of doing their job.
They just make the conversation as confusing as possible, and then later make
assertions about what was said that are entirely inaccurate. Instead of getting
legitimate admissions, they just assert in their report later that such
admissions occurred.
And this system seemed to work pretty well. Records created
in the regular course of business always have a particularly high value as
evidence. These Sheriff's employees used their records as a new layer of proof
of what was said, and most people then just take their word for it. However,
when you go back to the original interviews, the investigators' claims just
don't pan out.
You're almost better off staying out of discussions with
people intent on believing SA is guilty. They have embraced these second-hand
records as gospel, and you're never going to convince them otherwise. They have
zero competence themselves as police investigators because they're actually
just people trying to learn about a case using the Internet. At least I have
some actual experience with this kind of work, so I understand more of what's
going on. But you're never going to win an argument with someone who has become
so obtuse about the facts and who has developed such an inflated opinion of
their own expertise.
Luckily, people don't go to jail based on third-hand gossip.
Of course, in SA's case, much of it isn't much better than third-hand gossip.
He really got a raw deal.
I watched that Star Trek episode recently, where the line comes up, "evil seeks to maintain power by suppressing the truth or by misleading the innocent." It made me think of guilters. You have a main group that know they're lying, and maybe a subgroup of followers who either don't have the time or don't have the ability to think for themselves.
CaseFilesReviewer wrote at TickTockManitowoc:
The CASO report is the result of a pre-trial conference with MTSO on June 26, 2006 (MTSO report, page 16).
In other words, the CASO reports are prepped, so I don't bother with them much.
Colborn wrote his 11/3/2005 report of activity on 6/29/2006, after the pre-trial conference with CASO.
The contents of the George Zipperer voicemail were reported in the MTSO reports for 11/3/2005, long before the CASO revision as result of the pre-trial conference on 6/29/06, which resulted in a different version in CASO.
The police seemed to have changed their “narrative” as result of the 6/29/06 pre-trial meeting (MTSO Summary Report, page 16 of 17, paragraph 17).
It was reported on 11/03/05 that the message Teresa left at Zipperer’s was seeking directions (page 4 of 17, paragraph 6). On 11/5/05 the detectives discussed amongst themselves that Teresa went from Steven Schmitz's to Steven Avery's (audio at 2:05). Yet, in the CASO report, which seems to have been created as result of the pre-trial meeting, a different message detail was reported (page 18 paragraph 5). Additionally, it was reported that the 2:27 call was the last phone activity when in reality it was the 2:41 call (page 3 paragraph 2). It was reported that the call with Schmitz was at approximately 1:10 when in reality it was ten to one or 12:51 (page 6 paragraph 3). Andy Colborn seemed to slip with his “2:00 or 2:30” (TT D7/P76/L18-20): I suspect he meant to say “3:00” to match his 6/29/06 reporting of his 11/3/05 activity (page 17 of 17 paragraph 1). “Between 2:00 and 2:30” matches the 11/5/05 discussion (audio at 2:10). The MTSO Investigative Report, MTSO Global Subject Report, and MTSO dispatch log (audio) show raw data time stamped by a system of record that can't be changed by officers.
It shows:
11/03/2005 18:35 - Avery was entered as the suspect of "HOMICIDE NON-NEGLIGENT."
11/03/2005 18:37 - Teresa Halbach is reported missing to the MTSO's Dispatch.
11/03/2005 18:51 - Dispatch alerts all units of Teresa Halbach being a missing person.
On 11/03/2005, when Teresa was only reported missing, only her murderer would/should have known it was a "HOMICIDE."
Those systems should have been subpoenaed long ago, since a "system of record" logs whoever made the entry, and that person has a lot of explaining to do, especially since the evidence points to one person in LE.
THE ABOVE INFO TELLS US THAT Strang and Buting had NO IDEA that any calls were made into MTSO dispatch regarding the Halbach Case on 11/3 and 11/4 prior to the RAV being found on 11/5.
They had NO AUDIO and MTSO DISPATCH LOGS IN THEIR POSSESSION WITH A LARGE GAP IN DATA THAT WAS MISSING.
STRANG AND BUTING didn't discover the AUDIO of Colborn's call until August 9th, 2006.
(1) Barb and Mr. Tadych recently made admissions that Ms. Halbach left the Avery property before her disappearance.
Taped phone call from Steven to Barb and Scott. Barb falsely claims that she didn't have internet access then, when her computer clearly shows browser activity. Barb admits that Bobby told her that "she [Ms. Halbach] left."
(3) The State's theory that Mr. Avery initiated the appointment with Ms. Halbach on October 31, 2005, is refuted by Bryan's affidavit and the corroborating statements of his brothers, Blaine and Brendan.
New corroborated affidavit states, it was Barb who made the arrangements for the appointment.
(4) Mr. Avery has discovered new evidence that Barb attempted to remove evidence from her computer before it was seized by police on April 21, 2006.
Brad's new affidavit shows Barb stated she hired someone to "reformat" her home computer.
(5) Further evidence impeaching Bobby's trial testimony.
Bobby testified he got home from work and slept until 2:30 p.m., but computer forensics show activity throughout the day, when only he was home.
(6) In addition to the other evidence cited in Mr. Avery's prior motions, the evidence presented in this supplement requires an evidentiary hearing.
The evidence was discovered after conviction, the defendant was not negligent in its discovery, and the evidence is material.
Bobby told investigators that on October 31, 2005 he went to bed when he arrived home around 6 a.m. after working third shift. He said that he woke up about 2 or 2:15 p.m.
However, a forensic examination of the family's computer revealed that someone accessed the internet at 6:01 a.m., 6:28 a.m., 6:31 a.m., 7:00 a.m., 9:33 a.m., 10:09 a.m., 1:08 p.m., and 1:51 p.m. on October 31, 2005 (page 41).
Bobby was the only person home in the Dassey household from 6 a.m. until 3:45 p.m. on October 31, 2005.
Teresa called the Dasseys and left a message on their home answering machine at 11:43 a.m. on October 31, 2005. She explained that she would be arriving for the photo shoot around 2 p.m.
O’NEILL: Who else was home at Barb's house when she came, do you know? AVERY: Bobby was.
O’NEILL: Bobby?
AVERY: Yeah. O’NEILL: Ok. Anybody else that was home, that you know of? Bryan? was that your other —
AVERY: No, Bryan was working.
O’NEILL: So Bobby was home.
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: Where's Barb at?
AVERY: Barb was working too.
O’NEILL: So, Bobby was at the house.
AVERY: Yeah. O’NEILL: How do you, how do you know he was there?
AVERY: After, after I went over there, then—
O’NEILL: So, later after you got done with her—
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: Then you went over to Barb's, you said?
AVERY: Yeah. O’NEILL: Who was at Barb's when you were over?
AVERY: Well, he was.
O’NEILL: And nobody else?
AVERY: No, nobody else was—
O’NEILL: And why did, why did you stop at Barb's?
AVERY: I don't know. I mostly just walk right over there.
O’NEILL: Pardon?
AVERY: I just mostly walk right over there.
O’NEILL: So after she leaves, you put the Auto Trader magazine in your house.
AVERY: Yeah, and I went over there.
O’NEILL: And you walked right over, right away?
AVERY: Yeah. Well, he was gone. He'd just left.
O’NEILL: Bobby did?
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: Ok. So you walk over to Barb's though, right?
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: Who's there?
AVERY: After she left, when I walked over there, he—he left.
SKORLINSKI: Did you see him leave?
AVERY: No.
SKORLINSKI: So he was already gone.
AVERY: Yeah. He just left.
O’NEILL: So nobody was at Barb's then? AVERY: No. But the first time, when I come home or before that, I went over there and I talked to Bobby.
O’NEILL: 11 o’clock?
AVERY: Yeah, somewhere in there.
O’NEILL: Ok. AVERY: Uh, or it was after—it was 12 o’clock, because I was outside for a while.
O’NEILL: Ok.
AVERY: Because I went in the house.
SKORLINSKI: Barb's already gone?
AVERY: Yeah.
SKORLINSKI: Ok.
AVERY: I know I talked to him somewhere in there, I, I can't remember. O’NEILL: But before she came, you talked to Bobby?
AVERY: Yeah. O’NEILL: And then after she left, you went over by Barb's. Bobby left.
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: What'd Bobby leave—what, what did he drive somewhere or take—
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: What'd he drive?
AVERY: Yeah, he took his Blazer.
O’NEILL: Do you know where he went?
AVERY: No. O’NEILL: Ok. So when you're there at 11 o’clock, sometime after 11 o’clock, you actually talk to Bobby?
AVERY: Yeah. O’NEILL: And then, you go back to your place?
AVERY: Yeah. O’NEILL: And then, when the lady comes at two o’clock you talk to her. Then you get done with her and you go back over to Barb's but Bobby's gone because the Blazer's gone?
AVERY: Yeah.
Also from Steven Avery's November 14, 2017 sworn affidavit (Exhibit D, page 89):
I distinctly remember that every time Teresa Halbach came to our property to photograph vehicles, Bobby would always say, "I see that your girlfriend was over yesterday," the following day.
UPDATE OCTOBER 24, 2017: Kathleen Zellner filed a "Motion for Reconsideration" with 20 new exhibits on October 23, 2017, and in it she revealed that Bryan Dassey told DCI agents on November 6, 2005 that Bobby Dassey saw Teresa leave the Avery property on October 31, 2005 (image below).
The following image is from Byran's affidavit attached as Exhibit G to Zellner's October 23, 2017 motion.
Bobby Dassey's testimony was essential to the State's claim that Teresa Halbach, a photographer for Auto Trader magazine, was last seen alive at the Avery Salvage Yard. Bobby Dassey testified that he last saw Teresa heading in the direction of Avery's trailer, and did not see her or her car leave the property before he left to go hunting that afternoon.
However, according to Zellner's motion, Bobby and Brendan's older brother Bryan Dassey told Department of Justice officials in November 2005 that Bobby had told him that he did see Teresa leave the property that day. Bryan Dassey recently doubled down on his recollection, signing an affidavit stating, "I distinctly remember Bobby telling me, 'Steven could not have killed her because I saw her leave the property on October 31, 2005.'"
Bobby could have left the property in his truck and Teresa could have pulled out behind him. If so, this means Bobby would have seen her in his rear view mirror as both of them were driving down Avery Road. He said he turned right onto highway 147 from Avery Road and Steven said he saw Teresa signaling to turn left (and that Bobby's truck was gone when he saw Teresa at the intersection of highway 147 and Avery Road).
Zellner alleges that new forensic testing performed on the Dassey family computer recovered "images of Teresa Halbach, many images of violent pornography involving young females being raped and tortured, and images of injuries to females, including a decapitated head, bloodied torso, a bloody head injury and a mutilated body."
The big issue with Zellner's contention about the internet searches for violent pornographic images is that the searches all were done on Sunday, September 18, 2005: on this day, most, if not all, of the Dassey brothers could have been home (exhibit 3, page 145, has a bar graph depicting times of day of the searches, and they're between 7-9 a.m. and then between 3-8 p.m.) and, potentially, Barb's husband, Tom Janda, and Scott Tadych, as well.
None of the death-related internet searches were part of the table shown in the exhibit as performed on September 18th. These searches probably were around April 2006, at the same time the images of matching pictures were recovered. The computer was seized on April 21, 2006; the images found were from around April 19th.
In his original statement, which he dictated to Dedering on 11/5/05, Bobby didn't mention seeing Teresa leave the property.
Also, showering after, not before, he saw Teresa was not what Bobby said in his original statement. In his original statement, he said he got up about 2:15 or 2:30 PM, showered, looked out the window, saw Teresa arrive in her RAV4, watched her get out and take a picture of his mom's van, stopped watching to get his jacket and bow, went out to his truck and left to go hunting -- "about 3 or 4 minutes went by between the time he got his jacket and the time he got into his truck" (which means he showered BEFORE, not after, he saw Teresa arrive).
It was in his activity report for 2/27/06 that Dedering added the part about Bobby showering ("for approximately 10 minutes") AFTER he saw Teresa arrive. Dedering falsified Bobby's statement (writing that Bobby saw Teresa arrive "prior to getting into the shower") because the State needed to push the timeline forward 10 to 15 minutes -- they couldn't have Teresa at both Zipperer's and Avery's at 2:30 PM.
Bobby testified falsely to establish the State's timeline (page 36-41).
Bobby was willing to lie because the State most likely threatened to charge him as an accomplice in Teresa's murder (they could have framed him just as easily as they framed Avery). Plus, the State probably led Bobby to believe that Brendan would be exonerated if the family cooperated in testifying against Steven.
Bobby flubbed his lines during his testimony: Bobby testified that he saw Teresa arrive, took a shower for 10 minutes, and then left in his truck at 2:40 or 2:45 PM. However, if Bobby left at 2:40 or 2:45 PM, and this was 10 minutes after he saw Teresa arrive, this would mean that Teresa arrived at 2:30 PM. But 2:30 PM is the time that the State claims Teresa was leaving Zipperer's and heading to Avery's (a 15-minute drive). Teresa can't be at two places, Avery's and Zipperer's, at the same time, 2:30 PM.
Bobby was supposed to testify that he saw Teresa arrive at the Avery property at 2:40 or 2:45 PM, but, instead, he testified that he left the Avery property at 2:40 or 2:45 PM.
Bobby flubbed the lines that Kratz had scripted and rehearsed with him: Bobby's testimony had Teresa arriving at 2:30 PM rather than 2:45 PM, and the defense team didn't catch this critical mistake.
The State's script for Bobby was: Bobby saw Teresa arrive at 2:45 PM. Then he took a 10-minute shower. Then he got dressed and got his jacket and bow. Then he went out to his truck. He saw Teresa's RAV4, but not Teresa, when he went outside and left the Avery property in his truck at 3 PM to go hunting.
Showering after, not before, he saw Teresa was not what Bobby said in his original statement, which he dictated to Dedering on 11/5/05. In his original statement, he said he got up about 2:15 or 2:30 PM, showered, looked out the window, saw Teresa arrive in her RAV4, watched her get out and take a picture of his mom's van, stopped watching to get his jacket and bow, went out to his truck and left to go hunting -- "about 3 or 4 minutes went by between the time he got his jacket and the time he got into his truck" (which means he showered BEFORE, not after, he saw Teresa arrive).
It was in his activity report for 2/27/06 that Dedering added the part about Bobby showering ("for approximately 10 minutes") AFTER he saw Teresa arrive.
Dedering falsified Bobby's statement (writing that Bobby saw Teresa arrive "prior to getting into the shower") because the State needed to push the timeline forward 10 to 15 minutes -- they couldn't have Teresa at both Zipperer's and Avery's at 2:30 PM.
Marinette County deputy Anthony O'Neill interviewed Steven Avery beginning around 2 PM on 11/5/05. Later that day, around 6 PM, Calumet County deputy John Dedering interviewed Bobby Dassey. During this initial interview with Bobby, Dedering told Bobby that Steven said Bobby was the last person to see Teresa. However, Steven didn't say that on 11/5/05.
The following is what Steven said to O'Neill on 11/5/05 about Bobby regarding Teresa:
O’NEILL: She's here for at most 15 minutes.
AVERY: No, five minutes.
O’NEILL: Five minutes. And then she's gone. She pulls out of your driveway, right?
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: Which way does she go?
AVERY: And then she goes to Larrabee. Or, she goes back down this way, and this way, then this way. This all—this is all field, that's all cut down, so you can see the highway.
O’NEILL: So you can see. Ok. So she leaves here and goes this way, right?
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: Teresa?
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: Ok. And she wasn't with anybody at all?
AVERY: No. There was nobody in the truck.
O’NEILL: Ok. Did you—you didn't see her come in, which way she came in?
AVERY: No, no.
O’NEILL: All right.
AVERY: Well, she mostly goes that way, toward Larrabee.
[...]
O’NEILL Ok. And the contact you had with her only lasted for how many minutes?
AVERY: Within five minutes.
O’NEILL: And then from—after you’re done with her and she gives you the book, where do you go to?
AVERY: I go back in the house.
O’NEILL: Ok. So, at the time before you leave to get out of the house, that's where you've been for how long?
AVERY: Since 11 o'clock.
O’NEILL: Ok. So from 11 'til two. And then about 2:15, 2:30, whatever the case may be, right? And you're done with her, she leaves you go back into your house.
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: And how long are you there for?
AVERY: Probably, I don't know—drop off the book, then I walked over by Barbara.
O’NEILL: By where?
AVERY: By Barbara, my sister.
O’NEILL: Ok.
AVERY: Wanted to see if Bobby was home but Bobby was already gone. He'd just left.
On 11/5/05, Dedering was instructed to tell Bobby that Steven said Bobby was the last person to see Teresa. The State twisted Steven's words to turn the Dassey family against Steven and to manipulate Bobby into altering his recollection of events. Bobby eventually would say whatever they wanted him to say to get of out the line of fire.
In his activity report for 11/5/05, Dedering wrote:
I advised him that we had learned that Steven indicated Bobby had seen this young lady after Steven had. He indicated that there was "No way, I was hunting." I asked Bobby if he would be interested in pursuing some sort of truth verification to show me that he was, in fact, being truthful and his response was "Yes." I asked him what he thought the results of this examination would show, and he indicated, "I'm telling the truth." I asked Mr. Dassey why Steven Avery would say that Bobby was the last one to see the photographer. Bobby responded, "Did he say that?" I then asked Bobby if it was true and his response was, 'No." I asked Bobby why Steven would say something like this and Bobby's response was "He'd stab ya in the back." Bobby indicated that Steven has done this to him before over "little stuff."
Bobby must have confronted Steven after Dedering told Bobby on 11/5/05
that Steven said Bobby was the last person to see Teresa. When O'Neill
interviewed Steven again the next day, 11/6/05, Steven somewhat adopted the State's
twisted version of his first statement to O'Neill, that Bobby was the last
person to see
Teresa.
The following is what Steven said to O'Neill on 11/6/05 about Bobby regarding Teresa:
O’NEILL: Then she just leaves?
AVERY: Yeah. She shuts the door and leaves.
O’NEILL:Is, is Bobby home then, or no?
AVERY: Yeah, Bobby's home.
O’NEILL: Ok. And, does he come out and, or anything? Or does he see you leave, or see her leave?
AVERY: I don't know. You'd have to ask him.
O’NEILL: But you know he's home?
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: Ok. Well, so —
AVERY: He's home at that point.
O’NEILL: When she leaves, he's home?
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: And how far away from Bobby's vehicle are you, you think?
AVERY: Well, her — his vehicle was sitting by her [Barb's] garage. So that's only —
O’NEILL: Like from here to where? Where we're looking right here.
AVERY: Uh, from here?
O’NEILL: Yeah.
AVERY: Probably to the other side of the, the shop there.
O’NEILL: The other side of the blue shop?
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: So probably about, that's about what, maybe, uh 80 feet? And, and you know he's home though, right?
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: When she's leaving.
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: Ok.
AVERY: And just when I walked in the house, I come back and then he was gone.
O’NEILL: So just in that moment?
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL:Of you, you saying goodbye to Teresa—
AVERY: Yeah, and went in the house.
O’NEILL: Go into your house with the paper, and coming back, you notice that he's gone.
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: But while she's giving you that thing, he's still there?
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: So he — Ok.
AVERY: Within, I don't know, that second. With her vehicle running, and his is quiet.
O’NEILL: Uh - huh.
AVERY: He probably, at the same time, almost.
O’NEILL: Ok. So, but, the time that it took you to walk from her vehicle to your place, drop off that thing—
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: And then to walk right back outside again?
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: He's gone.
AVERY: He's gone.
O’NEILL: Ok. Do you know where she's at?
AVERY: Who?
O’NEILL: Teresa.
AVERY: Oh, no.
Steven
did clarify during this 11/6/05 interview that Bobby and Teresa left
almost at the same time. When O'Neill followed up with, "Do you know
where she's at," Steven could have been misinterpreting this question to
mean, "Do you know where Teresa is right now," at the moment O'Neill
was questioning him, rather than where Teresa was when he walked back
outside again and saw that Bobby's truck was gone on October 31st.
Steven
told O'Neill the day before, on 11/5/05, that he saw Teresa when he
came back outside, and that she was signaling to go left from Avery Road
onto highway 147, and that Bobby's truck was already gone at this
point. Teresa was inside her vehicle when Bobby came outside to his
truck, which was just a minute or so after Steven went inside his
trailer, which is why Bobby saw Teresa's vehicle but not her when he got
into his truck and drove off. Teresa left right after Bobby left.
When Steven came back outside, he saw Teresa, in her vehicle, about to
turn left from Avery Road onto HWY 147 but he didn't see Bobby's Blazer
because Bobby had left the property moments before Teresa left.
On 11/9/05 deputies served a warrant on Bobby for a physical examination as well as the retrieval of Buccal swabs, palm prints and finger prints. This would have increased Bobby's paranoia and fear of being railroaded for the murder of Teresa Halbach like his Uncle Steven was railroaded for the sexual assault of P.B. in 1985. Dedering conducted a second interview of Bobby at this time, and Bobby offered details that he had not mentioned before or, more likely, Dedering falsified his report and misrepresented what Bobby said (this is why you should never talk to the police -- invoke your Fifith Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and consult an attorney!).
In his activity report for 11/9/05, Dedering wrote:
A synopsis of the taped interview is that once again Dassey stated he left home at approximately 1500 hours on 10/31/05 and he had observed a teal SUV, that he had never touched or gotten close to. He stated when he left the property there was no one in his immediate sight. He stated he did not talk with Steven Avery between 11:00 a.m. and noon on 10/31/05 indicating he was asleep and is a very sound sleeper. He stated he does not even hear the telephone when it rings.
Dassey indicated he has seen the Suzuki that we discussed with him parked at Steven's garage for about two weeks. He indicates the clutch is out and you have to push it to move it. He stated the Suzuki was parked in the garage the week before the girl went missing.
Dassey indicated that sometimes family members will burn the heads of deer but this is usually in the burn barrel. Dassey stated the only deer at the residence was the deer that is hanging in the garage currently.
Bobby Dassey states this is his first year bow hunting and he hunts approximately two and one-half miles away from his house.
Dassey stated Steven was mad at Barbara about something and he was not sure what but they patched it up last Wednesday. Dassey indicated he does not talk to Charles or Earl and has not spoken with Chris (ph) Avery in the past nine months.
Dassey indicated that on Tuesday or Wednesday he observed a burning in the area in a pit behind Steven's garage. He believed there was brush burning. Dassey stated he was home that night. Bobby Dassey states Steven sometimes burns tires in the pit and Steven usually burns tires at night so you cannot see the smoke. Dassey indicated Steven does not burn his tires anywhere else and he indicated he believed Steven was burning with Dassey's little brother, Brendan.
Bobby Dassey testifying at Steven Avery's trial
They tricked Bobby, telling him that Steven said Bobby saw Teresa last. They used fear and intimidation to manipulate Bobby. They served a warrant for his DNA, finger prints, palm prints and physical examination. By the time he was interviewed a third time, almost four months later (on the same day as Brendan's coerced false confession), Bobby had changed significant parts of his original statement to help the State frame Steven Avery. He lied because he knew law enforcement could frame him in the same way they framed Steven Avery for sexual assault in 1985.
On 2/27/06, almost four months after his first and second interviews with Bobby Dassey, and after Brendan Dassey's coerced false confession, Dedering interviewed Bobby again.
Also in Dedering's activity report for 02/27/06, he wrote that Bobby said he took a shower after he watched Teresa, not before, when he first woke up, and that at least 10 minutes passed by the time he stopped watching Teresa and the time he went out to his truck, rather than 3-4 minutes as Bobby dictated to Dedering in his original statement.
In his activity report for 2/27/06, Dedering wrote:
Special Agent Michael Sasse and I did locate Bobby Dassey at the
residence of Duane Osmunson, 5017 Nuclear Rd. in the Mishicot area at 1955 hrs.
Sasse and I asked Bobby Dassey if he had some time to speak with us and he
indicated that he did. We then went out to the county vehicle, which I was
operating, and Bobby Dassey did have a seat in the front passenger side and
Special Agent Sasse climbed into the rear passenger side. Prior to asking Dassey
any questions, he was advised that he was not under arrest, did not have to
answer questions if he chose not to and was free to leave at anytime he so
wished. I asked him to open the passenger front door of the vehicle in order to
demonstrate to him that he was perfectly free to leave. He understood this and
agreed to answer questions.
We went over his activities to the best of his
recollection on Monday, 10/31/05. He stated that he arrived home from work at
approximately 0630 hrs (it should be noted that Dassey was employed at Fisher
Hamilton in Two Rivers at this time) and went to bed.
He stated that he got up
between 1400 and 1430 hrs., got into the shower, and went bow hunting.
He stated
he arrived home somewhere approximately 1730 hrs. and that it was dark out
already. He stated he did not recall who was home when he arrived, but thought
perhaps Brendan was. He stated that when he arrived home, he went straight to
bed and did not eat ...
Bobby indicated that when he was leaving for work at
approximately 2130 hrs., he noticed that Steven was having a bonfire. He estimated
that the flames were five to six feet in height. He stated that it was a
good-sized fire and that Steven has had fires there in the past. He stated that
he could not say for sure that Steven was tending to the fire and he was
further unsure whether Brendan was there or not. He stated that the view from
his residence to the fire pit is somewhat blocked by the garage of Steven Avery. He stated that he worked from 2200 hrs. until 0600 hrs. the following day and
when he arrived home, he noticed nothing unusual and that the fire was out ...
I asked Bobby if he could recall once again what he saw regarding Teresa Halbach
and her vehicle. He stated that while he was preparing to go bow hunting on
10/31/05, he observed Teresa's vehicle pull in and he observed Teresa get out
and take one or two photos of the maroon van, which his mother had for sale. Bobby
said that this was prior to him getting into the shower. He stated that when he
got out of the shower (approximately ten minutes later) he brought his bow out
to the vehicle and Teresa's vehicle was still there but he did not see her.
He
stated that she was wearing a black coat, black trousers and he cannot recall
what color her top was. Dassey drew me a diagram indicating that the Halbach
vehicle was pointed in a westerly direction almost directly across from the
westernmost portion of the Barbara Janda circular driveway. Bobby stated that
the vehicle was gone when he got back from hunting.
I asked Bobby about the
position of the Suzuki Samurai. Bobby thought that, to his best recollection,
the Suzuki was in the garage for a while, and he was unsure when Steven moved
it out of the garage. He stated that he was never in the garage when the Suzuki
was parked in the garage and he stated that he could no longer independently
recall where the Suzuki was positioned when he left for hunting.
Bobby Dassey's written statement, dictated to John Dedering at 7 p.m. on 11/05/05:
On Monday, 10/31/05 at about 2:15 - 2:30 p.m., I got up to go deer
hunting. I took a shower. I got dressed for bow hunting & noticed
someone coming down the driveway. She stopped in front of my mom's
maroon van that Steve is trying to sell for my mom. I watched her take
pictures of the van. She got done with that & started to walk toward
Steven's house. I grabbed my bow, got into my Blazer, and left. I
didn't see the lady who took the pictures when I left. The S.U.V, a teal
colored, possibly a Honda, was there when I left to go hunting. She had
shoulder length brown hair, it looked darker to me. She was wearing a
dark waist length jacket. She was skinny. About 3 or 4 minutes went by
between the time I got my jacket and the time I got into my truck. I
dictated this statement to Investigator Dedering. I have read this
statement and initialed all corrections. This statement is true and
accurate. No promises or threats have been made to get this statement.
To summarize, in his written statement dictated to Dedering on 11/05/05, Bobby said:
He woke up between 2:00 and 2:30, showered, and got dressed.
He looked out the window and saw Teresa coming down the driveway
(Blaine said the dogs would bark when vehicles came down the driveway,
which could have prompted Bobby to look out the window).
He watched Teresa take pictures of his mom's minivan and then he saw
her walk toward Steven's house, at which time he stopped watching her.
He stopped watching Teresa, grabbed his bow, got his jacket, got in his truck, and left (he first may have come outside with his bow, putting it in his truck, before going back inside to get his jacket and then coming back outside and driving off in his truck to go hunting).
About 3 or 4 minutes went by between the time he stopped watching Teresa and the time he got his jacket and got into his truck.
Police Reports on Contact with Bobby Dassey (Misrepresentation by Law Enforcement in Falsified Reports or Compromised Statements):
1. When first questioned on 11/5/05, Bobby did not know what time he
left home. Dedering wrote that Bobby said "Scott would be able to verify
precisely" what time. By Bobby's second statement on 11/9/05, Dedering
wrote that Bobby left home at approximately 1500 hours on 10/31/05
(Bobby would testify at Steven Avery's trial that he left home at 2:40
or 2:45 PM).
2. Dedering wrote of his second interview
with Bobby on 11/9/05, that "on Tuesday or Wednesday, Bobby observed a
burning in the area in a pit behind Steven's garage; he indicated he
believed Steven was burning with Dassey's little brother, Brendan."
During his first interview on 11/5/05, Bobby must not have volunteered information about a fire, or must not have been asked about a fire, because Dedering wrote nothing
about a fire in Steven's pit (or barrel) in his activity report for 11/9/05.
3. Dedering
wrote of his third interview with Bobby on 2/27/06 that Bobby showered
after he stopped watching Teresa,
clarifying in parenthesis that it took Bobby 10 minutes to shower. In
his dictated statement to Dedering on 11/5/05, Bobby he said he got up,
showered and got dressed, and that after he watched Teresa snap pictures
of the van and walk toward Steven's trailer, it took 3-4 minutes for
him to get his jacket and bow, go out to his truck, and leave.
4.
In Bobby's dictated statement to Dedering on 11/5/05, he said he got up
at about 2 to 2:15 PM; however, Dedering wrote in his 11/5/05 and 2/27/06
activity reports that Bobby said he got up between 2:00 and 2:30.
Dedering consistently pushed Bobby's timeline forward by 15 minutes,
probably so the State's timeline could put Teresa Halbach at Zipperer's
before Avery's [see Here's Proof Teresa Halbach Went to Avery's Before Zipperer's].
Blaine Dassey testifying at Steven Avery's trial
You cannot believe any
eyewitness testimony after initial interviews in this case because they are compromised. The only ones with any constancy are Steven and
Blaine. Others appear to have said whatever someone wanted them to say,
or made it up as they went along. Blaine too would eventually
succumb and change his initial statements.
Respectfully decline to talk to law enforcement by invoking your Fifith Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and
advise your friends and family to do the same. If law enforcement has
anything against you, they will arrest you and charge you without first
needing to interrogate you.
"On the advice of my lawyer, I respectfully
decline to answer on the basis of the Fifth
Amendment, which—according to the
United States Supreme Court—protects everyone, even innocent people, from the need
to answer questions if the truth might be
used to help create the misleading impression that they were somehow involved in a
crime that they did not commit."
Contact a lawyer before communicating with law enforcement.
"It
is very important that any communication you ever have with an
investigating police officer takes place either through a lawyer or in
the presence of a lawyer. Even things that you say on the phone to a
police officer can in some cases be used in court against you. Sometimes
a police officer will not even explain that coming into the station
‘for a chat’ can mean being interviewed under arrest by appointment.
Never discuss anything to do with an allegation directly with a police
officer without first having a lawyer there. In most cases, a lawyer of
your choice can be provided on a legally-aided basis for free, and a
police officer never will have reason to be surprised if they hear from
your lawyer, and not you, at first." [Source]
Keep your mouth shut. Don't answer any questions. You can be charged with a crime for lying to the police (police are allowed to lie to you, but if you lie to them they can charge you with a crime, such as obstruction of justice).
Remember, cops are trained to lie. They have taken this to mean that they are allowed to falsify evidence and reports, hide or destroy evidence, plant or fabricate evidence, threaten and intimidate witnesses to give false statements, and commit perjury themselves by giving false or questionable testimony. And seldom, if ever, do cops (or prosecutors) experience any repercussions or suffer any consequences for committing these crimes.
"You Have the Right to Remain Innocent" (James Duane)
Published on September 30, 2016
Law professor James Duane became a viral sensation in 2008 for a lively lecture that explained why people shouldn’t agree to answer questions from the police. In his new book, You Have the Right to Remain Innocent, Duane expands on that presentation, offering a vigorous defense of every citizen’s constitutionally protected right to avoid self-incrimination. By using case histories of innocent persons who were wrongfully imprisoned because of information they gave to police, Duane debunks the claim that “if you haven’t done anything wrong, then you don’t have anything to worry about.
Don't Talk to the Police (Regent University School of Law)
Published on March 20, 2012
Regent
Law Professor James Duane gives viewers startling reasons why they
should always exercise their 5th Amendment rights when questioned by
government officials. Download his article on the topic:
