Is It Rachel Haggs or Rachel Haag? Did She Lie About Her Name, Among Other Things? (You Can't Trust the CASO Reports)

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.

Page 38

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 HAGGS who 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.

In Zellner's The Steven Avery Proof of Guilt Challenge, she said: "Scott Bloedorn called Steven Speckman (the "Steve in Sheboygan on Teresa's day planner for 10/31), not Steven Avery, on 11/3 at 4:10 p.m." (Zellner also said in The Steven Avery Proof of Guilt Challenge that Teresa had appointments in Sheboygan on the morning of 10/31).

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")?

— TickTockManitowoc (@TManitowoc) February 8, 2018

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.

Why does the big file of CASO investigative reports look like somebody copied all the reports into a Word document?

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.

From Kratz's email dated November 9, 2009 to Potter regarding Kratz's sex scandal:

"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

— TickTockManitowoc (@TManitowoc) November 8, 2017

MnAtty wrote at TickTockManitowoc:

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.

Needless_Things wrote at TickTockManitowoc:

Strang and Buting were given the MCSD summary reports (including the dispatch logs) in a discovery transfer when they came on board in March of 2006.

NO MCSD AUDIO is handed over to Avery's defense team from their March 2006 request. 

Link to Buting snippet from Pre-Trial confirming defense requested these and never received them

PLEASE TAKE NOTE of the LARGE GAP in the MTSO logs, FROM 11/3 6:51 PM until 11/5 10:56 AM, when the RAV4 is found on the Avery property. 

Link to MTSO Logs

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.