Wisconsin: Something Evil Has Been Happening There For Decades: Kratz's Summary Exhibits

Showing posts with label Kratz's Summary Exhibits. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Ken Kratz's Summary Exhibits for Halbach's and Avery's Cell Phone Calls

All day re-tracing TH steps.No doubt she left Avery property alive.All roads lead to one door & it's not Steven Avery's.#MakingAMurderer
— Kathleen Zellner (@ZellnerLaw) April 9, 2016

Bobbie Dohrwardt of Cellcom testified that she prepared the spreadsheet for Avery's cell phone calls (day 12, page 153) but the who, what and why of using her "call log" rather than Avery's actual bill wasn't explained. This "call log" created on a spreadsheet (exhibit 359) was entered into evidence rather than Avery's actual bill, which would have shown all his calls along with the cell sites used. Dorhrwardt's "call log" did not show any cell site information.

During her testimony, Dohrwardt used the "call log" spreadsheet (exhibit 359), the documents prepared by Kratz (exhibits 360 and 362), and Teresa's Cingular pre-bill (exhibit 361) to testify about who called Avery and Teresa and at what time.

It is obvious why Avery's actual bill was not entered into evidence: it would list calls that could destroy the prosecution's timeline. Also, it is important to note that the bill from Teresa's carrier, Cingular, shows phone numbers for her outgoing calls but not her incoming calls. If Cingular only provides the phone numbers for outgoing calls, how did Ken Kratz determine the identity of the incoming callers to Teresa's cell phone (he would need to subpoena or execute a warrant for her call detail request to get the incoming numbers)?

Kratz prepared a separate document, a "summary exhibit," where he listed names of incoming callers to Teresa's cell phone (Exhibit 362 above), but without other official documentation there is no way to confirm that the names are the actual callers. In other words, Kratz's concocted document list names and call times for incoming calls but there is no evidence to back this up. He created these documents to support his timeline. And these documents should not have been presented to Dohrwardt when she testified: she doesn't know who made the incoming calls to Teresa, and for Kratz to ask her to tell the jury who made the calls by reading from his concocted documents is outrageous.

None of the documents used at trial are acceptable. Anything faxed can be altered. Only printouts of official documentation produced directly by the cell phone carriers should have been admitted into evidence.

"In our records, incoming calls are not shown. No incoming calls show on the records, just the outgoing calls." - Laura Schadrie, Cingular Wireless Store Manager, Day 12, Page 210

Kratz created the "summary exhibit" listing Dawn as the 2:27 p.m. caller, but this is based on Wiegert misrepresenting that call since November 3rd. No evidence was entered at trial to prove who made the incoming calls.

On day 12 of the trial, Laura Schadrie, a Cingular Wireless Store Manager, testified: "In our records, incoming calls are not shown. No incoming calls show on the records, just the outgoing calls." (Day 12, Page 210). The incoming calls are pure fabrication by the prosecution.

In all likelihood, the 2:27 p.m. call was from someone in the Zipperer home. Was this George, JoEllen, Bonnie or Jason returning Teresa's call from 15 minutes earlier? The called lasted 4 minutes and 45 seconds.

Sometime after the 2:27 p.m. call, Teresa set her phone to "Call Forwarding No Answer," which means her incoming calls would automatically go to voicemail.

About 10 minutes after first trying to call Teresa to see if she could come back for a second shot, Avery tried again at 2:35 p.m. using *67, but hung up before the call even registered with Teresa's phone: meaning, she didn't see that second call attempt.

At this point maybe Avery decided he should just call AutoTrader and ask them to see if Teresa could come back for a second shot. Avery's actual cell phone bill was not entered into evidence, so we don't know if this was the case.

At 2:41 p.m., an incoming call to Teresa went to voicemail. She never retrieved this voicemail. This was the last call to register with a cell tower. This last call forwarded message (CFNA) occurred when her cellphone was still powered on and registered. When CFNA is activated, you must provide a forwarding phone number and a number of rings. CFNA forwards your phone to that forwarding number. If that forwarding number doesn't answer, then the call is sent to voicemail. The default behavior is for the phone to go to voicemail if it is unanswered.

Dawn told Wiegert on November 3rd that the 2:27 p.m. to Teresa could have been her because she left Teresa a voicemail that afternoon. However, Teresa answered the 2:27 p.m. incoming call and spoke to the caller for almost five minutes. The only voicemails left that afternoon were at 1:52 p.m. and 2:41 p.m. Coincidentally, both of these calls were not included on the summary exhibit created by Kratz of Teresa's cell activity. These voicemails are included in a printout entered into evidence. The printout for the 1:52 voicemail record was altered; the 2:41 voicemail record, although not altered, didn't have any data that would help identify the caller.

Teresa called two other people that morning, and both were located in Green Bay.

It seems virtually every witness called by Kratz at Avery's trial was coached to lie to backup the prosecution's timeline, and it seems like Avery is the the only one with a consistent story about his contact with Teresa that day and the time she arrived and departed.

Teresa's phone last registered with a cell site at 2:41 p.m., an incoming call that went to voicemail, and that caller left a 60-second voicemail. Teresa made no calls and answered no calls after that.

The next person to try calling her was Avery at 4:35 p.m., but by this time her phone was no longer registering with a cell site, which means it was powered off or the battery was dead or removed.

So something happened to Teresa between 2:41 p.m. and 4:35 p.m.

The earliest she would have left Zipperer's is 3 p.m. Since she hadn't made any calls or received any calls during this time period, there is no cell tower data on her Cingular bill to indicate her location.

Teresa was killed:

1. On Zipperer's property;
2. On the road or at another appointment after leaving Zipperer's property, heading either toward Green Bay or home;
3. At her photo studio in Green Bay if she went there to assemble her materials and overnight her package to AutoTrader; or
4. At or near her home if she headed there after her last appointment (she could have gone home to assemble her materials, with the plan to overnight the package to AutoTrader from Appleton, which is near her home).

Wiegert's report on his November 3rd activity is shady (trial exhibit 216, excerpt below). The report doesn't even indicate when he wrote it. Laura Schadrie of Cingular testified: "In our records, incoming calls are not shown... no incoming calls show on the records, just the outgoing calls." And she testified that Cingular doesn't print out the phone numbers of incoming calls. So Wiegert only had the phone numbers of the outgoing calls from Teresa's phone. And those calls only had the phone numbers, not the names of the callers. Wiegert wrote that the 11:43 a.m. outgoing call was to Steven Avery when that number belongs to Barb Janda. Also, see other notes on the image below on why Wiegert's report is part of the conspiracy to frame Avery.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Quotes

"The most common way for forensic evidence to be planted is by re-labeling the forensic swabs." - Dr. Karl Reich, PhD

A former New York City narcotics detective testified in court that planting drugs on innocent people was common practice, a quick and easy way to boost arrest numbers. Stephen Anderson, the former detective, is now cooperating with prosecutors and is spilling the beans on the crooked practice of framings and false arrests, often to reach arrest quotas. “It was something I was seeing a lot of, whether it was from supervisors or undercovers and even investigators,” Anderson testified in Brooklyn Supreme Court. “It’s almost like you have no emotion with it, that they attach the bodies to it, they’re going to be out of jail tomorrow anyway; nothing is going to happen to them anyway.” The Drug Policy Alliance, a group that promotes alternatives to the war on drugs, issued a statement calling the case against the officers indicative of larger, systematic failures. “One of the consequences of the war on drugs is that police officers are pressured to make large numbers of arrests, and it’s easy for some of the less honest cops to plant evidence on innocent people. The drug war inevitably leads to crooked policing — and quotas further incentivize such practices.” - Huffington Post, October 13, 2011

A crucial aspect of Zellner’s effort to overturn Ryan Ferguson's conviction was obtaining two recantations from key witnesses whose testimony placed Ferguson at the crime scene. They admitted to lying after being pressured by police and prosecutors. Zellner has become a standard bearer among civil rights attorneys and has long been known as a fierce courtroom advocate — armed with a recorder-like memory, trial techniques that include videotaped re-enactments of crime scenes and, perhaps most crucially for her clients, an ability to elicit the truth from co-defendants or witnesses who have previously lied about innocent defendants’ involvement in crimes in order to save themselves. Quite simply, she gets people to talk. And to tell the truth. - Chicago Lawyer Magazine, December 2014

“What drives me is the abuse of power—the bullying and the victim. I have such a strong reaction when I see people who can’t defend themselves... When I watched the Avery case, I felt that the attitude toward him by the prosecutors and the state was that he was disposable. It was almost like a class thing. [His family] didn’t matter, they had no power. The longer I watched it, the more angry I got.” - Kathleen Zellner, Newsweek, April 8, 2016

“We are continuing to examine every aspect of Mr. Avery’s case and all of his legal options. We are confident Mr. Avery’s conviction will be vacated when we present the new evidence and results of our work to the appropriate court.” - Kathleen Zellner, The Wrap, January 11, 2016

“There is evidence that already exists in the case that points to a different location and a different suspect. We've got a combination of forensic evidence and a tip from somebody that we've interviewed multiple times that we think is credible... I've never seen a more graphic, compelling illustration of a crime scene that was fabricated.” - Kathleen Zellner, The New York Times, August 18, 2016

During a press conference on August 26, 2016, Kathleen Zeller said: “[In the post-conviction petition] we're going to lay out all of our investigation that we have done that will point to a third party. That was not successfully done at the trial level. I think the most reassuring thing is that we are going to get to the bottom of who killed Teresa Halbach... we're not going to disclose that until we do the post-conviction petition. But I can tell you that the testing we've already done will establish Mr. Avery's innocence. But we are going to do the whole thing; we're going to do every conceivable test. We've been contacted by scientists all over the world, volunteering, offering us ideas. And now we've got it pinned down to the testing we need to do to determine once and for all: was the evidence in the vehicle planted, was the DNA on the bullet planted, was the car key planted, was the DNA on the car key planted? We're going to be able to answer all of those questions because it's been almost 10 years since the verdict and there have been really huge developments in forensic science... Because he [Avery] never made any incriminating statements. The [Dassey] confession has been invalidated. So you're down to the evidence at the crime scene. You're down to the key, the hood latch, the blood in the RAV and the bullet.” When asked, “Do you just have one suspect in mind or are you looking at multiple suspects?,” Zellner replied, “In fairness, yeah, we are looking at multiple people, but we are narrowing it down.” And when asked, “What can you tell us about the suspect?,” she answered: “Nothing. Nothing. Not until I file [the post-conviction petition].”

“Not 1 but 8 plants: bullets, bones, blood, camera, cellphone PDA, key, car + false confession. World's best experts on it. #MakingAMurderer” - Kathleen Zellner, Twitter, January 17, 2017

“There’s always an element of misconduct. Police, prosecutors—They’re actually able to sleep at night knowing they’ve convicted an innocent man. They rationalize it. They say ‘I didn’t convict him, the jury did!’” - Paul Henderson, Private Investigator, May 7, 2013

"My biggest problem with police interrogations is they don't believe anything you say. So right out of the gate everyone is a liar as far as they are concerned. They are pretty much trained to be cynical of society and given power over them at the same time. They claim you are lying, while they themselves lie. To them, the end justifies the means when you’re a police officer protecting the citizenry from the scum of the city." - Reddit

“I think people become jaded when they spend too much time as a prosecutor, or if they first come to be a prosecutor after being a victim of some kind. They start seeing all of the accused as a subclass of humanity that doesn't deserve due process. Then they start watching Nancy Grace, and hanging around with the like minded, until their journey is complete. Unfortunately it is within human nature to descend down these paths to prejudice, to form self congratulating, witch burning mobs, and to rationalize the injustices they cause by dehumanizing their victims.” - magilla39, Reddit, October 11, 2017

"She’s not intimidated by anybody. In particular, she doesn’t have much respect for authority. She has a willingness to challenge and be skeptical of authority. And she has a real compassion for the underdog. Most of the people in prison are dangerous, violent criminals who belong there—she knows that. She’s not starry-eyed about criminals. But she’s not starry-eyed about people in authority, either." - Robert Zellner, January 2018

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions rededicated his department to working with local law enforcement on civil asset forfeiture efforts that bypass the need for criminal convictions to seize property—and also bypass state and local safeguards. Forfeited funds are split between federal and local agencies in a lucrative arrangement for everybody but the victims. "Equitable sharing" collaboration between federal and local agencies was suspended under former Attorney General Eric Holder, but the new regime is jump-starting the program. Yes, Sessions promised that "the federal government will not adopt seized property unless the state or local agency involved provides information demonstrating that the seizure was justified by probable cause." But that's cold comfort if the probable cause comes from eager cops planting bags of drugs hither and yon. The evidence—not planted—suggests that police officers don't need more incentive to falsify reasons for slapping on the cuffs. Day-to-day pressures to meet arrest quotas, out-do colleagues, or spackle over errors in judgment seem to have already done the job in spades. - J.D. Tuccille, July 24, 2017

'If I was able to spoon feed an audience for 10 hours facts that I could pick and choose, edit or even create from other clips I could get an audience to believe whatever I wanted them to believe." - Ken Kratz, Daily Mail, February 13, 2017

Fair Use Notice

This site may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.