Teresa Halbach's Cell Phone and Cell Tower Locations

UPDATE NOVEMBER 16, 2017: Kathleen Zellner filed a "Second Supplement to Previously Filed Motion for Reconsideration" on November 16, 2017.

Attached as "Exhibit A" (page 106) is a "minutes used" report of Teresa Halbach's cell phone activity, obtained by Teresa's friends when they accessed her Cingular account online at 5:49 PM on November 3, 2005 (incoming calls that went to voice mail do not appear on this report).

The "minutes used" report (image below) lists outgoing calls to Denise Coakley, Dan Morrow and George Zipperer, as well as an incoming call from Steven Speckman, which are not listed on the 2017 AT&T report.

That was how my calls would show on my bill when I would forward a business line to my cell...

— Sara Exum (@sara2oz1019) July 7, 2018

The "minutes used" report that was printed from Teresa's Cingular account online (image above) wouldn’t show calls that went directly to voicemail because the messages don’t use minutes unless you call from your cell to listen.

Corporal Leslie Lemieux of the Calumet County Sheriff's Office wrote in her activity report for November 3rd: "Scott and several of their mutual friends had located Teresa's most recent cell phone activity report on her computer. They printed a copy for us, which showed the last cell phone activity at 2:27 p.m. on Monday, 10/31/05. It appeared when looking at the minutes used history that Teresa had made phone calls to each of her appointments prior to her arrival that day."



Attached as "Exhibit D" is a sworn affidavit from Steven Speckman.

The following is his affidavit, signed June 27, 2017 (page 96).

In 2005, I lived in Sheboygan, Wisconsin.

I have reviewed a page from Teresa Halbach's phone records, labeled and incorporated in this affidavit as Exhibit A. I recognize my phone number, 920-254-6635, in the fifth row from the top of the list of calls on Exhibit A, which also indicates that the call took place at 12:44 on October 31, 2005. My memory has been refreshed by reviewing Exhibit A; I called Teresa at 12:44 p.m. on October 31, 2005.

I did not personally know Teresa Halbach and never spoke to her prior to October 31, 2005. Several days before October 31, 2005, I contacted AutoTrader and inquired about advertising vehicles I had for sale.

On October 31, 2005, I called Teresa Halbach at 12:44 p.m. to cancel or reschedule my appointment to have photographs of the vehicles I was considering advertising in AutoTrader taken. The conversation I had with Teresa lasted several minutes, during which Teresa was making an effort to reschedule my appointment for that same day but at a time that worked for both of us. At one point in our conversation, Teresa told me that she was looking at her calendar to determine her availability.

During our conversation on October 31, 2005, Teresa told me that she was currently in the Sheboygan area handling other appointments in or around Sheboygan. I recall that Teresa told me that she either had just finished an appointment in Sheboygan or was heading to her last appointment in Sheboygan. 

In an effort to reschedule my appointment into her schedule on October 31, 2005, Teresa told me she would be available to meet within the next thirty minutes or so to handle my appointment. Teresa said that after that time, she would be leaving the Sheboygan area and we would have to reschedule for another day.

I was unable to meet with Teresa within thirty minutes of our conversation, so she could complete my appointment that day. We ended the conversation by agreeing to reconnect on a later date to schedule a time for her to photograph the vehicles I was thinking about advertising in AutoTrader.

UPDATE NOVEMBER 14, 2017: Kathleen Zellner filed a "Motion for Reconsideration" with 20 new exhibits on October 23, 2017.

One of the exhibits is a sworn affidavit from Denise Coakley Heitl, who Teresa called 11:35 a.m. on October 31, 2005. This call is on the faxed Cingular pre-bill but not on the AT&T report generated in 2017.

The following is Denise's affidavit, signed June 23, 2017 (page 150 of the exhibits).

Teresa Halbach took senior portraits of my son in Fall 2005. I didn't personally know Teresa and this was the first time I had hired her to take photos. To the best of my recollection, a co-worker referred me to Teresa.

Before October 31, 2005, Teresa had called me to let me know that the prints were ready to be picked up and to ask that I call her back to set up a time for me to pick them up. I called Teresa back on October 31, 2005, and wound up leaving her a voice message.

She called me back a little later on October 31, 2005, and told me that we could schedule a time for me to pick up the pictures. My recollection is that she called me around 11:30 a.m. on October 31, 2005. I have reviewed a page from Ms. Halbach's telephone records, labeled Exhibit A and attached and incorporated to this affidavit. I recognize my telephone number, 920-360-2455, line 19, at 11:35:13 a.m. My memory is refreshed by reviewing Exhibit A that my conversation with Ms. Halbach occurred at 11:35 a.m. on October 31, 2005. At that point, she told me that she was driving but that she would pull over to check her calendar before scheduling my appointment. She said she worked for a car magazine taking photos of cars and she was on her way to an appointment. She didn't say where she was going or who she was meeting.

During our conversation on October 31, 2005, at 11:35 a.m., Teresa checked her calendar and we scheduled an appointment for the following day at her studio in Green Bay for me to pick up the pictures. I went to the studio in Green Bay on November 1. Teresa did not show up for my appointment with her. While I was waiting for Teresa, an older man who I took to be Teresa's boss at the studio, showed up, and I told him that I had an appointment with Teresa to pick up pictures. I remember that he commented that it was strange that Teresa missed my appointment. He found the pictures and gave them to me.

Later, I was interviewed by the police. I don't remember the date of the interview, but I know it was before Steven Avery's trial. One detective interviewed me at work. I can't remember the name of the office or which agency he was from. I told him all the information contained in this affidavit. That was the only contact I had with law enforcement that I can remember. I was not contacted by law enforcement to appear at Steven Avery's trial as a witness.

UPDATE JUNE 15, 2017: The image at the top of this blog post is a markup of a snapshot taken of a page from Exhibit 72 of the motion for post-conviction relief that Kathleen Zellner filed on June 7, 2017 (click here for the image before the markup). This report of Teresa Halbach's cell phone records was generated by AT&T on February 20, 2017 (Cingular purchased AT&T in 2005 and launched the transition of the Cingular brand to AT&T in 2007).

There are discrepancies when comparing the facsimile of the Cingular pre-bill entered into evidence at Steven Avery's trial (Exhibit 361) and the 2017 report subpoened from AT&T. Most glaringly, two calls used to establish the State's timeline for October 31st are listed only on the faxed 2005 Cingular pre-bill (and not the subpoened 2017 AT&T report):

1. the outgoing call to Zipperer at 2:12 p.m., and
2. the 2:27 p.m. incoming (or outgoing) call (Dawn Pliszka of AutoTrader testified that Teresa called her at 2:27 and told her that she was on her way to Avery's).

The following is a summary of discrepancies with the 2005 facsimile of the Cingular pre-bill.

There are 10 calls on the 2005 Cingular pre-bill (which starts with an incoming call at 6:05 PM on 10/30/05) that are not listed on the 2017 AT&T report.

Five calls on 10/30/05 are not listed on the AT&T report:

1. 10/30/05, Time Stamp 08:00:18 AM, Duration 02:33
2. 10/30/05, Time Stamp 08:05:42 AM, Duration 01:57 
3. 10/30/05, Time Stamp 11:44:05 AM, Duration 00:35, lists as outgoing call to 920-420-1740
4. 10/30/05, Time Stamp 11:44:48 AM, Duration 01:09, lists as outgoing call to 920-420-1740
5. 10/30/05, Time Stamp 05:40:15 PM, Duration 01:17, lists as outing call to 920-662-0127 

Five calls on 10/31/05 are not listed on the AT&T report:

1. 10/31/05, Time Stamp 11:31:55 AM, Duration 03:04, lists as outgoing call to 920-405-1998 (Dan Morrow)
2. 10/31/05, Time Stamp 11:35:13 AM, Duration 01:36, lists as outing call to 920-360-2455 (Denise Coakley)
3. 10/31/05, Time Stamp 12:45:12 PM, Duration 03:00, listed on Wiegert and Dedering's reports as incoming at 12:44 p.m. from 920-254-6635, plus Kratz, in his Offer of Proof, says this call is from Steven Speckman at 12:44 p.m. However, according to the toll-free numbers report in Zellner's motion, Speckman called AutoTrader from the number 920-254-6635 at 12:43 p.m., and the call lasted 1.1 minute. Perhaps this is why Kratz uses the time stamp 12:45 on the doctored Cingular pre-bill rather than the 12:44 time stamp in Wiegert's and Dedering's reports and in Kratz's own Offer of Proof.
4. 10/31/05, Time Stamp 02:12:19 PM, Duration 01:09, lists as outgoing call to Zipperer 
5. 10/31/05, Time Stamp 02:27:16 PM, Duration 04:45, Wiegert and Kratz claim at 2:27 p.m. there was an incoming call from Dawn Pliszka at AutoTrader (Wiegert wrote a four-page report of his activity for November 3rd, but we don't know when he wrote it or what day it was filed because it is an undated report, as are all the investigative reports released to the public by the Calumet County sheriff's office in 2016).

Concerning the 12:45 p.m. incoming call on the faxed 2005 Cingular pre-bill, there is a "Steve in Sheboygan" in Teresa's day planner for October 31st (PC-exhibit 45) who had two vehicles he wanted photographed, including a large moving truck:

"Steve Sheboygan, Monday, 4 ft long moving truck, 2 vehicles"

An AutoTrader employee named Rachel was interviewed by DCI agent Neil McGrath on December 1, 2005. Rachel claimed that Steven Avery called AutoTrader on November 3 and that she spoke to him at this time.

The following is an excerpt from a report about McGrath's interview with Rachel:

"RACHAEL recalled speaking with an individual who identified himself as STEVE AVERY on approximately Thursday 11/03/2005... AVERY told RACHAEL that he had an appointment for 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 RACHAEL that HALBACH instructed him to contact the office to reschedule the appointment."

Rachel told a different story a month earlier. Rachel called CASO on November 4, 2006 (CASO page 38) to report a rumor that "Dawn overheard" Steven Avery called AutoTrader on November 3.

The following is an excerpt from Dedering's report on his contact with Rachel:

"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."

According to Zellner in her "Proof of Guilt" challenge, Scott Bloedorn called Steven Speckman at 4:10 PM on 11/3, the "Steve" from Teresa's day planner.

Speckman may have called AutoTrader on 11/3 and told whoever answered the phone that he didn't appreciate being accused of doing something, and this person could have mistaken him for Steven Avery. The "Steve" who called AutoTrader on 11/3/05 was not Steve Avery, per his phone records.

Concerning the 2:27 p.m. incoming call on the faxed 2005 Cingular pre-bill: Wiegert and Kratz claim that Dawn Pliszka called Teresa and spoke to her for almost five minutes. However, Dawn told Wiegert on November 3, 2005 that she thought she left a message for Teresa on the afternoon of October 31st. When Dawn testified at Avery's trial in February 2007, she said Teresa called her at 2:27 on October 31st (rather than her calling Teresa).

A search for 414-425-8712, the 2:27 p.m. incoming call, on truepeoplesearch.com indicates that this number is/was a landline belonging to a household, not AutoTrader. There are actually two different households it could have belonged to at some point.

Wiegert's reports about 414-425-8712:

"The last phone call listed on TERESA's account would have been on 10/31/05 at 2:27 p.m. It indicates it is an incoming phone call from xxx-xxx-8712. In doing a reverse directory on that phone number, it came back to AUTO TRADER magazine."

"I informed ANGELA we were reviewing TERESA's phone records and there was an incoming call at 2:27 p.m. on 10/31/05 from the phone number of xxx-xxx-8712, the AUTO TRADER magazine. "

Dedering's report about 414-425-8712:

"I was unable to get any information from the lnternet on the last incoming call xxx-xxx-8712."

The November 5th phone call between Wiegert and Remiker about the 2:27 PM call:

Remiker: Avery says he believes 2 or 2:30.

Wiegert: From there we believe she goes to Zipperer's. Zipperer is apparently not real good on time.

Remiker: Yeah...[laughs]...yeah.

Wiegert: And that's the last time anyone has seen her; she has a cell phone call at 2:24 which it appears she had answered; there's one at 2:27 which is incoming [recording appears to be edited here] got or not went to voicemail, talking to the person down at auto magazine... she says... "I think that was me, I left her a message" but didn't know what time it was.

Remiker: What time did Dedering get off the caller ID at Zipperer’s place that she called; do you remember what time that was?

Wiegert: Hold on, I've got this right here; okay, I'm back; there's a call placed to Zipperer's at 2:12 p.m. on Monday.

Remiker: Okay.

Wiegert: So I'm assuming that's the one she probably left a voicemail there.

Remiker: Probably...right…. before she got there?

Wiegert: Yeah the last call, 2:27, that's an incoming one, which we believe just went to voicemail (inaudible), which is five minutes long. Um, and that's it; after that, we got nothin'; so between 2:12 and 2:27...that's it....she disappears.

Remiker: Did Dedering get those phone records for tower locations and stuff.

Wiegert: Yeah, but I don't have them, he grabbed them and then went back up to the house to check on the fax machine.

Remiker: Okay, so you don't know what that last phone call... what tower went off or anything?

Wiegert: I don't know that.

Remiker: Alright.



Attached to the post-conviction petition that Kathleen Zellner filed on June 7, 2017, is a DCI report by agent Neil McGrath, who met with Teresa's AutoTrader supervisor, Angela Schuster, on November 6, 2006. Angela said the following (per the DCI report):

Schuster stated that Teresa Halbach had scheduled appointments on Monday, 10/31/2005 with George Zipper [sic], 4433 CTH B, Manitowoc, Wisconsin, telephone number 920-682-5719 for a Pontiac Firebird, Craig Sippel, N253 Highway A, New Holstein, Wisconsin, telephone number 920-753-5676 for a 1955 Ford Thunderbird (however, the appointment had been rescheduled); and B. Janda, 12930A Avery Road, Two Rivers, Wisconsin, 54241, telephone number 920-755-8715 for a 1989 Dodge mini-van. The appointment for B. Janda was made on Monday, 10/31/2005, after an individual called into the office attempting to arrange the appointment. Schuster believed that the receptionist at the office, Dawn Pliszka, contacted Halbach in the field and arranged for Halbach to shoot the appointment on Avery Road. Schuster stated there is also a possibility that Halbach had other appointments that she would have arranged on her own and Schuster would not be aware of these appointments until Halbach faxed in her appointment report the following day.

Schuster believes that Pliszka attempted to call Halbach on her cell phone and left her a message about the appointment. Halbach later called back and Pliszka was out to lunch. In the afternoon Halbach did make contact with Pliszka and they spoke on the phone around 2:27 p.m. Schuster stated that she believes the call took place at 2:27 p.m. because she had spoken to a Manitowoc County Detective named Mark [Wiegert], who advised Schuster of the time that the call had taken place.

There are two numbers on the 2005 faxed Cingular pre-bill that do not appear at all on the 2017 AT&T: report:

1. 920-360-2455 (Coakley)
2. 920-682-5719 (Zipperer)

A call to 920-420-1740 lists as ONE INCOMING call at 6:05:13 p.m. (duration 00:04) on October 29th on the 2017 AT&T report but lists as TWO OUTGOING calls near midnight on the 2005 Cingular pre-bill:

1. 10/29/2005, time stamp 11:44:05, duration 00:35
2. 10/29/2005, time stamp 11:44:48, duration 01:09

Other problems with the 2005 Cingular pre-bill:

1. 10/30/05, time stamp 04:41:27, duration 00:55, shows as outgoing when AT&T says it was incoming
2. 10/30/05, time stamp 05:40:15, duration 01:17, lists as OUTGOING call to 920-663-0127 on 2005 Cingular pre-bill but lists as an INCOMING call about an earlier, at 04:41:27, on the 2017 AT&T report

Time stamp discrepancies for outgoing calls on the 2005 Cingular pre-bill:

1. 920-585-3839, Unknown ID, 00:37 on 2005 report versus 00:02 on 2017 report 
2. 920-740-1900, Unknown ID, 00:54 on 2005 report versus 00:42 on 2017 report
3. 920-755-8715, B. Janda, 01:05 on 2005 report versus 00:42 on 2017 report
4. 920-894-3912, S. Schmitz, 00:46 on 2005 report versus 00:34 on 2017 report

Note that every call on the 2017 AT&T report is accounted for on the 2005 Cingular pre-bill (but there are some discrepancies such as duration of call, whether it was incoming or outgoing, etc.). 

-- END JUNE 15, 2017 UPDATE --

November 6, 2005 RAW Interview with Steven Avery | NBC26


Per Teresa Halbach's Cingular pre-bill, tower 2110 processed two incoming calls to her cell phone on the afternoon of October 31, 2005. The first call was at 1:52 p.m. (the caller left a voicemail message), and the second call was 49 minutes later, at 2:41 p.m. (the caller also left a voicemail message). The 2:41 p.m. call was the last call to be received by Teresa's phone while it was still powered on and registered.

According to a motion filed by Avery's attorney, Kathleen Zellner on August 26, 2016, Teresa's "last call forwarded message at 2:41 p.m," and this call pinged off a tower in Whitelaw, WI, "which was approximately 13.1 miles from Avery's."

Zellner wrote:

"Ms. Halbach had an appointment to take photos of vehicles at the Avery salvage yard for the magazine on October 31, 2005. Ms. Halbach disappeared after she completed her assignment and left the Avery salvage yard. Her last call forwarded message at 2:41 p.m., occurred when her cellphone was still powered on and registered. That call pinged off the Whitelaw Tower, which was approximately 13.1 miles from the Avery Salvage Yard."

The image below shows the location of a cell tower at 7500 Village Drive, one of three cell towers with structure addresses in Whitelaw, WI.  Per Google maps, the tower at 7500 Village Drive is 11.3, 12.1 or 15.9 road miles from 12930 Avery Road, not 13.1 miles. This would lead us to believe that the tower at 7500 Village Drive in Whitelaw is not tower 2110, the tower that processed Teresa's 2:41 p.m. incoming call, per Zellner.





The three towers with Whitelaw addresses are circled in red in the image above (they may or may not be Cingular towers). The tower at the intersection of County Road J and Route 10 is 17 to 19 road miles from 12930 Avery Road; however, it looks to be about 13 air miles from 12930 Avery Road based on the "radius around point map" below.

The following image shows the 13.1 radius from Avery's home at 12930 Avery Road in Two Rivers, WI.

"It’s absolutely shocking to see cellphone records that were part of the discovery that were turned over to the defense...document her route leaving the property. She goes back the same way she came; she’s 12 miles from the property on the last ping. They screwed it up.” - Kathleen Zellner, Newsweek, March 29, 2016

Zellner says she’ll argue Avery’s conviction should be overturned because of ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that lawyers Dean Strang and Jerry Buting bungled Avery’s defense by not arguing that Halbach’s cellphone records show she left Avery’s property alive. “It’s really hard to figure out how in the world did the defense not seize on this. It would have created reasonable doubt.” - Kathleen Zellner, Newsweek, April 8, 2016

The image below shows the cell towers near Zipperer's home (just south of the intersection at Route 310 and County Road B) and the dates they were constructed. It also shows the unregistered towers in the area, one being directly north of Zipperer's (below Shoto on County Road B). This is the structure that lines up with a map grabbed from the photo of Zellner's office floor in a Newsweek article published on March 29, 2016.

Cellphone tower records of SA & TH provide airtight alibi for him. She left property he didn't. #MakingAMurderer #UnmakingAMurderer

— Kathleen Zellner (@ZellnerLaw) March 6, 2016

The following is the photo from the Newsweek article about Zellner dated March 29, 2016.



In the image above there is a map of tower locations and compass directions among the documents on Zellner's office floor. The following is a rotated and enlarged image of the map grabbed from the photo.



In the image below, the enlarged and rotated map is overlaid onto a Google map of the area (credit goes to schmuck_next_door, mrchaddavis, Ductit and lonecrow66 at Reddit).



Based on tower information from General Data Resources, the two towers depicted on Zellner's office floor (Newsweek, March 29, 2016) are:

• 7500 Village Drive, Whitelaw, WI
• 5073 County Road B, Manitowoc, WI

The map below shows the cell site locations and the compass directions of sector antennas for the two towers depicted on Zellner's office floor. Circle and pie shapes don't represent the full range that the towers cover (cell sectors do not conform to a pie shape, nor is the coverage area a circle). The absolute maximum range for a standard Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) network is 35 km or 21.748 miles (AT&T, which merged with Cingular starting in 2004, is a GSM wireless company).



The first four digits of a cell site is the tower number and the fifth digit (as in 1, 2 or 3) represents the compass direction of the sector antenna. If you don't have good line of sight in the typical directions (N to NE, SE to S, and W), they will turn them to the best positions possible to cover as much area as possible; therefore, in reality, it can vary, so the directional sectors listed below are approximated.

Sector number — typical antenna pointing direction:

1 — approximately N to NE;

2 — 120° clockwise from 1 --- approximately SE to S;

3 — 120° clockwise from 2 --- approximately W.

Generally speaking, each sector covers 120 degrees, and sector one is North to Northeast, sector 2 is South to Southeast, and sector 3 is West. This is not absolute as your phone could be in sector 2 and yet ping sector 1 or 3 due to cellular traffic conditions and various environmental and engineering factors, such as weather, trees, foliage, hills, buildings, signs, etc., and whether you're inside or outside at the time, where structural materials may block the tower signal. 

The map below, which is from the book Cellular Location Evidence for Legal Professionals by Larry E. Daniel, illustrates the wide variation in radio coverage at ground level for cell tower sectors in an area. For example, the cell sector represented by the yellow area is an irregular shape, and a large portion of the sector’s coverage is disconnected from the tower, creating hot spots where a phone can make a call without being anywhere near the tower. 



The maps above and below from this link (pages 13-16) illustrate that radio coverage of cell towers and sectors is not limited to a precise circle or pie shapes (circle and pie shapes have little to no relationship on the way that radio waves actually work). Radio coverage varies a great deal from tower to tower and from sector to sector (and from day to day).



According to an article in The New Yorker:

The paradigm is the assumption that, when you make a call on your cell phone, it automatically routes to the nearest cell tower, and that by capturing those records police can determine where you made a call—and thus where you were—at a particular time. However, that is not how the system works. When you hit “send” on your cell phone, a complicated series of events takes place that is governed by algorithms and proprietary software, not just by the location of the cell tower."

Cell phones attempt to connect with the tower emitting the strongest and highest quality signal at a given moment, not the closest. The actual determination of which cell tower is used is complex and hinges on a multitude of factors that are not memorialized in the call detail records [you would need access to cell tower historical data].

Many factors come into play in the selection of a tower to handle a cellular phone call, and these factors are specific to the moment in time when the call is connected.

Such factors include:

a. the loading of the towers in the area, which means, which tower has the available capacity at that moment in time to handle the call

b.the health of the towers in the area at the moment in time, which means, are all towers fully functioning at the time of the call

c. line of sight to the tower from the cellular phone itself

d. radio signal interference from other cell towers in the area

e. the make and model and condition of the particular cell phone being used

f. multi-pathing which is a function of the terrain as well as both natural and man-made clutter in the area such as trees, hills, buildings and signs that cause radios waves to be either reflected or absorbed, also referred to as Rayleigh fading.

g. the strength and quality of signal from the towers around the cell phone

h. whether the phone is inside a building or outside at the time the call was recorded, where structural materials may block the signal from one tower, forcing the cell phone to select a different tower than one it would be able to connect with if it were outdoors."

Teresa's incoming calls on October 31st are listed below (trial exhibit 361). From the list you can see that her home tower was 2111 and, while at home, one of her incoming calls was processed by a different sector of tower 2111. This is an illustration of variation in radio coverage at ground level for cell tower sectors.

Date|Time|Type|Duration|Tower

10/31/05 08:17:01 Incoming 1.06 21112
10/31/05 09:46:02 Incoming 0.33 21112
10/31/05 10:44:37 Incoming 0.37 21112 
10/31/05 10:52:01 Incoming 0.05 21112
10/31/05 11:10:11 Incoming 0.05 21111
10/31/05 11:25:41 Incoming 0.43 21112
10/31/05 12:29:08 Incoming 0.40 21112
10/31/05 12:45:12 Incoming 3.00 21112

A handover to the better signal will occur if a sector is near its threshold. In 2005, there were a lot of factors involved in the GSM handover. Generally, a stronger signal that is increasing in strength and a current signal that is decreasing will signal a handover event. It depends on other factors, such as which tower, which method, etc. [Source]

"The network (the tower network) knows the quality of the link between the mobile and the BTS as well as the strength of local BTSs as reported back by the mobile. It also knows the availability of channels in the nearby cells. As a result it has all the information it needs to be able to make a decision about whether it needs to hand the mobile over from one BTS to another."

"If the network decides that it is necessary for the mobile to hand over, it assigns a new channel and time slot to the mobile. It informs the BTS and the mobile of the change. The mobile then retunes during the period it is not transmitting or receiving, i.e., in an idle period." [Source]

The two incoming calls to Teresa's cell phone that were processed by tower 2110 (1:52 PM and 2:41 PM) on October 31st were calls that went to voicemail, so they would be unpredictable in providing information on the phone's physical location, according to discussions on the Adnan Syed case. For incoming calls that don't go to voicemail, the system will ask the network where was the phone last located. If that tower still has a reasonable signal, it may connect the call. If the user has moved, there may be a stronger signal with another tower even though the phone still has a reasonable connection with the first tower. For outgoing calls, the phone will look for the tower with the best signal.

"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

[–]seekingtruthforgood

Teresa Halbach’s voice mails have been a topic of discussion here and in other Reddit subs. During trial, the voice mails were an issue because the defense was concerned about possible deleted messages.

This post is not intended to discuss whether messages were deleted, rather, it’s intended to focus on the sequential order of the unique database identifiers assigned to the voice mails.

The state’s record of the messages was submitted as Exhibit 372 for Steven Avery's trial (link below.) From the exhibit, I noticed that each record is assigned to a “Message ID.” That ID is found on the first upper left side of the entry. Page one of Exhibit 372 starts with Message ID 1336891647.

In looking at the Message Id’s, at least initially, it appears they are assigned in order sequentially by date… the numbers seem to increase or decrease, depending upon the date the message was received. So, the aforementioned Message ID of 1336891647 is assigned to a voice mail left on 11/16/2005. An earlier voice mail from 11/1/2005 is assigned to Message ID 435757567. Each number seems to increase, indicating, at least from a data perspective, that Cingular’s database may have organized the records by Message Id, in numerical order, for each message, based on the event date.

But, interesting, is that when one enters all records and organizes the data, numerically, by Message ID, 15 (79%) of the messages follow the event/date pattern of this sequencing, yet 4 messages (21%) are out of order:

https://imgur.com/zIJc8ba

I wonder what might explain this?

Exhibit 372:

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Trial-Exhibit-372-Halbach-Voicemail-Records.pdf

Voicemail - just for interpretation 

TickTockManitowoc

January 12, 2018

The VM record is separated into three sections: 

1. NEW (the 11/16 call); 

2. Unopened messages, of which there are eight, and they all came in after Teresa last checked her VM at 2:13 pm on 10/31; and

2. Incoming OLD Messages, of which there are 10, and all but one of them came in after Teresa last checked her VM from her phone. 

This last set is important for understanding who did what later.

Incoming OLD messages have been listened to. They are NOT unopened, because those are reported their own category.

The last time Teresa checked her VM and presumably opened messages, was at 2:13 pm, for only 37 SECONDS. That is NOT enough time to listen to all the messages that had come in since the last time she checked at 12:39 pm. 

There is a message left at 1:54pm (line 13 on her call record, the 1:52 pm incoming call) for 1 minute 15 seconds, twice as long as the time she was on her VM at 2:13 pm. 

Therefore, the message from the 1:52 pm caller could NOT have been heard all the way through, if at all.

AND YET -- here's the kicker -- all messages received up to 8 am on 11/2 had been opened. 

Unopened messages start at 9:23 am on 11/2. 

So presumably, Ryan Hillegas and Mike Halbach listened to 10 messages. Teresa did NOT.

[–]siebenkommaacht

On 11/2 she wasn’t a missing person.... officially. So why is he listening to her VM at all?

[–]Turk182

10/31 - Nobody notices and assumes she is at a Halloween Party

11/1 – Their thinking that maybe she stayed over at a friend’s or hooked up

11/2 – Scott’s birthday and she is a no=show (this is odd, let’s check her voicemail)

There was likely discussion between family and friends on 11/2. Not wanting to file a missing person report since not all had been contacted. Likely assumed she was with a new guy.

On 11/3 when they hear back from Autotrader that she hasn’t been at work -- they aren’t going to admit that they assumed she had hooked up. It would look bad for them if something happened to Teresa -- so family and friends are like “yeah, we just noticed also.”

This is more about protecting her character to employer and police.

I believe Mike said he stopped listening and didn't listen to them all. But is that true? We don't know how to tell when he accessed them other than his word.

Exhibit 372 is a report of Teresa's voicemail activity from October 31, 2005 to the time it was run on or after November 16, 2005, the last record of activity. Exhibit 62 is a report by Fassbender, who listened to the messages in Teresa's voicemail box.

Mike Halbach, Teresa's brother, testified that he had known Teresa's password and deleted some of her voicemail messages (day 18, page 176).

Anthony Zimmerman from Cingular testified about how voicemail messages are managed in queue (day 18, page 156). For some reason, page 162 of Zimmerman's testimony has been redacted. Also, Buting, on cross examination, asked questions that Zimmerman couldn't answer using exhibit 372, but Buting didn't ask him about other reports that could be made available to the defense to provide those answers (page 167).

Kratz and Buting argued about the voicemail messages dated October 31st, November 1st and up through 8:05 a.m. on November 2nd. Buting believed some of those messages were opened or deleted on the morning of November 2nd.

Kathleen Zellner, in her August 26, 2016 motion, contends that voicemail messages were deleted on October 31st and prior to 7:12 a.m. on November 2nd. On page 4 of her motion she writes:

"Five voicemail deletions occurred on October 31, 2005 and eleven additional deletions were made prior to 7:12 a.m. on November 2, 2005."

Zellner must have discovery materials that support this claim because trial testimony and evidence does not, even though the defense argued the same thing.

Teresa Halbach's Voicemail Report

There are a total of 19 records for voicemail activity on the printout entered into evidence (exhibit 372). Eighteen messages were recorded prior to November 4th, the date the Cingular pre-bill was generated and faxed (the fax was sent at 22:34 on November 4th). One message was recorded on November 16th, 11 days after Teresa's RAV4 was found at Avery Salvage Yard.

Comparing Teresa's call records (exhibit 361) with her voicemail activity (exhibit 372), you can see that every phone call that went to voicemail is 18-20 seconds longer than the length of the message. This indicates the length of time for her answering message to pick up and play through. 

Voicemails Left on November 1st:

9:49:42 call duration = 86 - 19 = 67 seconds
12:31:39 call duration = 49 - 19 = 30 seconds
2:01:22 call durcation = 48 - 20 = 30 seconds
2:45:26 call duration = 40 - 18 = 22 seconds
4:59:06 call duration = 51 - 18 = 33 seconds

The duration calcuations for voicemails left on November 1st match what is listed in the voicemail report.

Voicemails Left on October 31st:

Two voicemails were left on October 31st, one by the caller at 1:52 PM (retrieved by Teresa, voicemail duration 28 seconds, total call duration 76 seconds) and one by the caller at 2:41 PM (never retrieved by Teresa, voicemail duration 60 seconds, total call duration 80 seconds). Mike Halbach, Teresa's brother, had her cell phone password and would have been the one to listen to or skip during playback this message left by the caller at 2:41 PM because Teresa never retrieved this message on October 31st.

To get the voicemail duration, subtract 18-20 seconds (the time for Teresa's greeting to play in full) to the total call duration (from Teresa's Cingular pre-bill, exhibit 361). This should match the duration listed on Teresa's voicemail report (exhibit 372).

1:52:43 call duration 76 - 19 = 57 seconds, but record shows 28 second
2:41:59 call duration 80 - 20 = 60 seconds, same as what the report shows

The 1:54 record on the report is the voicemail left by the 1:52:43 caller. The duration calculation for this voicemail does not match the voicemail report, which means the record for this voicemail on the faxed report has been altered.

Also, this record is only seven lines long versus eight lines for the other records because the "From" and "Call Answer" fields have been altered (the phone number 920-227-8985, rather than the email address "non_mail_user@glr.smbs.sbc.com", is in these fields, and this is the only record that has a phone number in the these fields).  

Someone left a voicemail for Teresa starting at 1:52 p.m., which she retrived when she last checked her voicemail at 2:13 p.m., but the prosecution doesn't want us to know who made the call.


The voicemail left by the caller at 1:52 PM on October 31st was altered on the voicemail report. The call duration lists as 1:15 on the AT&T and Cingular reports. However, it lists as only 28 seconds on the voicemail report. The formatting for this voicemail terminating at 1:54 PM is 7 lines versus 8 for the other records, and line 6 of this record expands beyond the margins. The numbering sequence on the voicemail report for the "Msg-IDs" is out of order. 

There is no date or header for the voicemail report, but it was run on or after 11/16 because a new incoming message was received on that date and is listed on the report.

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.