Steven Avery: Making of a Murderer

[Wayward son]

We disagree here, at least to the "wasting your time" bit. If she argues ineffective assistance of counsel, with or without DNA, she's got a shot (statistically, see: https://www.innocenceproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Innocence_Project_IAC_Report.pdf) of about 8 to 20% for reversal.

I wasn't trying to make the statement that ineffective counsel is always a waste of time, just that based on Zellner's past strategy it would be. Any lawyer could take over this case and make that argument, and while that strategy has a low success rate in general, it's likelihood of success when SA had two highly paid and well-respected lawyers and most ineffective counsel successes had court appointed completely incompetent and sometimes drunk representation. While it is possible that ineffective counsel will be a part of her strategy, it will be a minor part. Ferguson's original counsel was completely incompetent, but the prosecution and the rest of the legal system were completely underhanded and unethical. Zellner is after the big fish and exposing the big fish is what leads to $100 million civil suits (as is the case with Ferguson).

There is another possibility - she still believes he didn't do it, but hasn't found strong evidence either way.

It's been a year. How long do you think it will take?

It took more than 4 years in the Ferguson case. She not only had to compile all the evidence (there was no physical evidence against him, simply a story line that was impossible), but she had to get every witness to recant their testimony and admit to the pressure and the threats that the prosecution used against them to get them to lie on the stand. It often takes a long time to get any of these people to agree to meet with you. It would likely take a lot more with the SA case because of the publicity. I don't know if she would go after all the people who testified in this case, as she has physical evidence to work with, but if she has a witness who counters the official story, which she has claimed she has at least one, she would be using that to slowly put pressure on all of the other witnesses. For 6 months she has had the pieces of evidence that she asked for new testing on. She had originally said that the testing for those items would be done around the end of March, but there was a delay before she received the items. I would imagine that we will hear something by late June, early July.

Maybe she is wrong this time. But the length of time that has occurred so far is not a concern. She is not interested in inflicting a crack in the dike. Her goal is to blow it up.

 

[Samson]

I came across this site in trying to answer my own question, here's what they wrote about that:



I don't find all these arguments convincing, for example I'm pretty damn sure every cop knows they can check the tenth digit of the VIN (which on a '99 Rav 4 is visible through the window on the driver's side dash) for the model year, and if necessary could pop the hood and check the catalyst sticker, so I don't think the explanation above is absolutely convincing, but the basic idea of the call simply being a double-check is not implausible to me.

Here is what Buting wrote

These tapes included calls the dispatcher had received on a phone line instead of via radio. Detectives and officers seemed to speak so freely in these phone calls that I had to wonder if even they knew they were being recorded. It was like listening to the Nixon Watergate tapes, only with slightly less profanity. In this unexpected gold mine of detail was the call Colborn made to the dispatcher about the license plate on Teresa Halbach’s car two days before the vehicle officially turned up. During Avery’s trial, Dean established that the call transcript read similarly to what an officer might say if he came upon a vehicle while on patrol. After the dispatcher read off the plate numbers, Colborn asked, “A ’99 Toyota?” This sounded suspiciously like Colborn had been looking at Teresa’s 1999 Toyota RAV4 when he made that call. But how could this be, if Teresa’s vehicle had not even been found yet? Unless, perhaps, Colborn really had found it but didn’t for some reason report the discovery.

 

[marplots]

(much snipped)
Maybe she is wrong this time. But the length of time that has occurred so far is not a concern. She is not interested in inflicting a crack in the dike. Her goal is to blow it up.

You give a compelling explanation. I'm convinced.

 

[marplots]

Here is what Buting wrote

These tapes included calls the dispatcher had received on a phone line instead of via radio. Detectives and officers seemed to speak so freely in these phone calls that I had to wonder if even they knew they were being recorded. It was like listening to the Nixon Watergate tapes, only with slightly less profanity. In this unexpected gold mine of detail was the call Colborn made to the dispatcher about the license plate on Teresa Halbach’s car two days before the vehicle officially turned up. During Avery’s trial, Dean established that the call transcript read similarly to what an officer might say if he came upon a vehicle while on patrol. After the dispatcher read off the plate numbers, Colborn asked, “A ’99 Toyota?” This sounded suspiciously like Colborn had been looking at Teresa’s 1999 Toyota RAV4 when he made that call. But how could this be, if Teresa’s vehicle had not even been found yet? Unless, perhaps, Colborn really had found it but didn’t for some reason report the discovery.

One side said it is best explained by him looking at the RAV-4. The other says this is a normal, checking of information thing.

There's a test that could be done. How often, on the tapes (say, going back a year) does this cop do the same "checking?" If never, it means he was probably looking at TH's vehicle. If "lots" then probably not.

The data exists.

 

[Samson]

One side said it is best explained by him looking at the RAV-4. The other says this is a normal, checking of information thing.

There's a test that could be done. How often, on the tapes (say, going back a year) does this cop do the same "checking?" If never, it means he was probably looking at TH's vehicle. If "lots" then probably not.

The data exists.

Is there a legitimate reason to allow the cops two days to "find" the car after establishing where it was?

After all it was a minor matter of a missing person who the cops had already claimed was dead. I think already.

 

[Samson]

Shaun Attwood comes up with this theory

Pam, knowing Mike Halbach was familiar with the Avery lot, asked him to go with her for a look-see. She probably called Colborn (the first bridge to law enforcement) and mentioned her and Mike’s plan. Colborn probably couldn’t resist and met them out there. This was on the 3rd, the same day Teresa was reported missing. The sun set on the 3rd around 5:45 pm, with Teresa being reported missing at 4 pm. They were a bit spread out during the search, with Colborn coming across the RAV4 first. Knowing that he didn’t have a warrant, he called dispatch on his cell phone instead of his official radio. At the moment dispatch said Teresa’s name, you can hear Pam in the background exclaiming “The car is here!” as she walked up to it. Colborn didn’t realize his 911 call had been recorded. You can see how surprised he was on the stand when they played back his call. He hadn’t expected to hear himself, and was unprepared to explain why he had described the vehicle as a ’99 after reciting the license plate, indicating he was in the presence of the RAV4. The next day, Friday the 4th, knowing Teresa’s car was on the compound, Colborn approached the Averys and first spoke with Steven’s parents. At some point, Steven was questioned about meeting Teresa. Steven gave them an unabashed account of Teresa’s visit. He let Colborn do a cursory check of his residence without a warrant. Colborn was fishing. Steven let him search his place, but Colborn found nothing. Colborn admitted to Lenk that he had found Teresa’s car on the 3rd without a warrant. Lenk, not asking to be, was now complicit. He wasn’t going to rat out Colborn, and still had it out for Steven. Once Lenk realized he was complicit in an illegal search, he was more inclined to do other illegal things to protect himself. He was already complicit with Colborn for covering their butts in 1995 about the Gregory Allen tip for which he was about to be deposed. Knowing there was nothing out of place according to Colborn’s search of Steven’s home, Lenk decided to plant blood evidence and remove the license plates the evening of the 4th. This helped to distance Colborn from the RAV4 regarding the plates. Lenk did this alone. No one else had to know about the blood. Lenk and Colborn in good faith at that time were sure beyond the shadow of a doubt that Steven had done it – just like the meth users had anticipated. Why would Lenk cross to the dark side?

 

[DragonLady]

One side said it is best explained by him looking at the RAV-4. The other says this is a normal, checking of information thing.

There's a test that could be done. How often, on the tapes (say, going back a year) does this cop do the same "checking?" If never, it means he was probably looking at TH's vehicle. If "lots" then probably not.

The data exists.

Yes; that has occurred to me, too.

If it's a routine thing to do, then there must be other logs of it being done.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

What Culhane left out of her report

In Mr. Buting's book, he quotes (p. 243) some of his cross-examination of Sherry Culhane concerning the positive result from the negative control:
Q. At no time, in this report, do you ever disclose, that in order to make that finding, you had to deviate from a protocol, did you?
A. No.
Q. Anyone reading this report would never know that, in order for you to make that call and say that that's Teresa Halbach's DNA, you had to do something you have never done in your career as a crime lab analyst, right?
A. Without discovery, no.

Concerning the DNA evidence in the Duke lacrosse case, Professor Paul Giannelli said words to the effect that a defense attorney should not have to search through a haystack to find an exculpatory needle. The same principle holds here. Professor Giannelli was the reporter for the ABA's committee which drafted the model rules for DNA evidence. I have less respect for Ms. Culhane and the laboratory than I did before, which is no mean feat.

 

[McHrozni]

In Mr. Buting's book, he quotes (p. 243) some of his cross-examination of Sherry Culhane concerning the positive result from the negative control:
Q. At no time, in this report, do you ever disclose, that in order to make that finding, you had to deviate from a protocol, did you?
A. No.
Q. Anyone reading this report would never know that, in order for you to make that call and say that that's Teresa Halbach's DNA, you had to do something you have never done in your career as a crime lab analyst, right?
A. Without discovery, no.

Concerning the DNA evidence in the Duke lacrosse case, Professor Paul Giannelli said words to the effect that a defense attorney should not have to search through a haystack to find an exculpatory needle. The same principle holds here. Professor Giannelli was the reporter for the ABA's committee which drafted the model rules for DNA evidence. I have less respect for Ms. Culhane and the laboratory than I did before, which is no mean feat.

The needle you mention is overblown. It would be great news for the defence if there was Steven Averys' DNA in the negative control, but not the DNA of the analyst.

The focus defense puts on the presence of DNA of the analyst in the negative control makes me skeptical they have anything good to present.

McHrozni

 

[Chris_Halkides]

It's the cover-up

If she really thought that this were no big deal, then Sherry Culhane should have disclosed it in her report. But (as the cross-examination highlighted) she did something that she had never done before. It's not the size of the needle; it's the fact that it was placed in the haystack that counts against the credibility of the lab.

 

[DragonLady]

If she really thought that this were no big deal, then Sherry Culhane should have disclosed it in her report. But (as the cross-examination highlighted) she did something that she had never done before. It's not the size of the needle; it's the fact that it was placed in the haystack that counts against the credibility of the lab.

This. It forces one to wonder what other things were not found in discovery, just because the lab is usually trusted to follow established procedures and be impartial as to the results.

Remember: the defense team wasn't allowed to be present for fear of contamination, yet other people (apparently unconnected to the case) were.

It throws a ray of suspicion where there should be none.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

consumptive DNA testing and the ABA standards

DragonLady,

"(e) If a motion objecting to consumptive testing is filed, the court should consider ordering procedures that would permit an independent evaluation of the analysis, including but not limited to the presence of an expert representing the moving party during evidence preparation and testing, and videotaping or photographing the preparation and testing."
From Standard 3.4 Consumptive testing, written by the American Bar Association.

I have posted this before. I don't know whether or not the defense objected to consumptive testing. But the principle is clear; the defense should have been able to observe in person or at least with video. And the presence of other people eviscerates the rationale given for refusing to let the defense observe.

I wish I shared your optimistic assessment of the impartiality of forensic labs. As long as they are part of law enforcement, they will favor the prosecution over the defense. Labs need to become independent of police.

 

[DragonLady]

Labs need to become independent of police

I agree. I'm not sure why I always assumed they were.

 

[JREF2010]

Shaun Attwood comes up with this theory

Pam, knowing Mike Halbach was familiar with the Avery lot, asked him to go with her for a look-see. She probably called Colborn (the first bridge to law enforcement) and mentioned her and Mike’s plan. Colborn probably couldn’t resist and met them out there. This was on the 3rd, the same day Teresa was reported missing. The sun set on the 3rd around 5:45 pm, with Teresa being reported missing at 4 pm. They were a bit spread out during the search, with Colborn coming across the RAV4 first. Knowing that he didn’t have a warrant, he called dispatch on his cell phone instead of his official radio. At the moment dispatch said Teresa’s name, you can hear Pam in the background exclaiming “The car is here!” as she walked up to it. Colborn didn’t realize his 911 call had been recorded. You can see how surprised he was on the stand when they played back his call. He hadn’t expected to hear himself, and was unprepared to explain why he had described the vehicle as a ’99 after reciting the license plate, indicating he was in the presence of the RAV4. The next day, Friday the 4th, knowing Teresa’s car was on the compound, Colborn approached the Averys and first spoke with Steven’s parents. At some point, Steven was questioned about meeting Teresa. Steven gave them an unabashed account of Teresa’s visit. He let Colborn do a cursory check of his residence without a warrant. Colborn was fishing. Steven let him search his place, but Colborn found nothing. Colborn admitted to Lenk that he had found Teresa’s car on the 3rd without a warrant. Lenk, not asking to be, was now complicit. He wasn’t going to rat out Colborn, and still had it out for Steven. Once Lenk realized he was complicit in an illegal search, he was more inclined to do other illegal things to protect himself. He was already complicit with Colborn for covering their butts in 1995 about the Gregory Allen tip for which he was about to be deposed. Knowing there was nothing out of place according to Colborn’s search of Steven’s home, Lenk decided to plant blood evidence and remove the license plates the evening of the 4th. This helped to distance Colborn from the RAV4 regarding the plates. Lenk did this alone. No one else had to know about the blood. Lenk and Colborn in good faith at that time were sure beyond the shadow of a doubt that Steven had done it – just like the meth users had anticipated. Why would Lenk cross to the dark side?

Thats interesting in trying to explain the facts. The license plate removed.
Watching MAM again Buting mentions the inconsistent prosecution theory of Steves blood but no fingerprints....so he had on gloves or he didnt? Did the prosecution answer that simple question or was it they claim he had them on then took off the gloves to go inside the car? makes no sense.

Guilters often have trouble accepting numerous "professionals" conspiring to frame someone and support the system even in untruthful situations which is happening in this case, imo. So Lenk and Colburn becoming the foot soldiers for their bosses is understandable. Will they squeel if things fall apart?

This Vogel guy and TKourcek were called out in the civil suit. The Manitowoc mafia with Petersen seems to have attempted protecting them and probably Peterson. The state too encourages saving $36 million.' Lenk and Colburn little minion soldiers tossed under the bus for the dirty work. That makes some sense.

Lenk and Colburn motive mentioned above is interesting. Just how much did they have to gain or lose to plant evidence, ruin their career or get promoted? They at the least bring conflict of interest into the case is interesting as Pete Baetz mentions. Factbender allowing so many people to tromp around, especially Lenk and Colburn makes Facttbender an incompetent or scum-cop in the mob.

Im still clueless, the garage and trailer clean and also the SUV, imo, clean of a murder location so the quarry pits and TH being outside the SUV seems to be some kind of "scene" that took place. Barrels in his backyard, chipped into small pieces of bones but only some of them in the trailer pit doesnt make sense.

The Detroit police corruption tweet by Brendans lawyer was strange (Lenks old employment in Detroit) makes one wonder how dirty is this guy?

The first I thought of the cops doing the shooting was Samson but its possible as anyone else especially if you dont believe the garage -magic -bullet isnt honest evidence.

Lenk ....Dirt from Detroit?

 

[JREF2010]

2016- "Most of Ms. Halbach's bones and 29 of her teeth were not found in Mr. Avery's burn pit," Zellner argued in her motion. "State expert Leslie Eisenberg testified that the volume of bones discovered in the burn pit was two- to three-fifths of what might be expected ... Dr. Eisenberg testified that she suspected that the bones found in the Radandt quarry, which included a pelvis, were human."

Did Judge WIllis just ignore this? Like he ignored the VoiceMails being deleted he probably didnt see how the bones had any relevance to the case....geeez

 

[Roger Ramjets]

2016- "Most of Ms. Halbach's bones and 29 of her teeth were not found in Mr. Avery's burn pit," Zellner argued in her motion. "State expert Leslie Eisenberg testified that the volume of bones discovered in the burn pit was two- to three-fifths of what might be expected ... Dr. Eisenberg testified that she suspected that the bones found in the Radandt quarry, which included a pelvis, were human."

Spin, or lying by omission?

The bones in the burn pit

Leslie Eisenberg, a forensic anthropologist, gives testimony regarding the bones found on the Avery property. She states that a fragment of almost every bone in the human body was found in the burn pit, which she believed to be the primary burn site of the body. She suspected two bone fragments found in a quarry on the Avery property appeared to be human pelvic bone. However, these bone fragments were never linked to Teresa. If the bones had been moved to the burn pit from another location, she would've expected to see breakage due to transport, which she did not see. She finds it "highly unlikely" that the bones were not burned in the fire pit.

 

[Samson]

Spin, or lying by omission?

The bones in the burn pit

Roger Ramjets:
Have you considered reading the book written by the man closest to the investigation who was not a Manitowoc plant?

Jeremy Buting: Illusion of Justice.

One click on kindle, but don't fall for straightforward facts when slavish adherence to the rulings of authority is more comfortable.

 

[marplots]

Spin, or lying by omission?

The bones in the burn pit

Makes you wonder if the second "bone site" was just evidence of another, unsolved and unknown murder Avery committed. Anyone else missing?

 

[DragonLady]

Makes you wonder if the second "bone site" was just evidence of another, unsolved and unknown murder Avery committed. Anyone else missing?

I wonder that, too.

If the local police suspected Avery of an earlier murder, it becomes more understandable they would want to be sure he was convicted for this one.

 

[Samson]

Makes you wonder if the second "bone site" was just evidence of another, unsolved and unknown murder Avery committed. Anyone else missing?

Always a lateral thinker, marplots. We can never have too many serial killers to add levity to the the news cycle.