Steven Avery: Making of a Murderer Part 2

[JTF]

Burden Of Proof

At trial, the burden was on Kratz to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Steven Avery murdered Teresa Halbach. He succeeded in meeting that burden, so for the past 13 years, the burden has shifted to Avery's defense team. If one places an emphasis on results, Kratz is a rousing success whereas Avery's defense team has done little to move the needle in regards to proving that MC law enforcement conspired to railroad Avery. In addition, the defense team has yet to present evidence that definitively links an alternative suspect or suspects to this crime.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a one-time occurrence, at best

" Auto-trader staff say that Steven would always call them asking for Teresa and that he would greet her wearing nothing but towel." Saying that "he would greet her" makes it sound as if it happened more than once. The towel incident happened no more than one time (all we have is a second-hand account), and the person to whom Ms. Halbach spoke did not know when it happened (my guess was that it was in the summer). More irrelevant chaff.

 

[Lerxst]

" Auto-trader staff say that Steven would always call them asking for Teresa and that he would greet her wearing nothing but towel." Saying that "he would greet her" makes it sound as if it happened more than once. The towel incident happened no more than one time (all we have is a second-hand account), and the person to whom Ms. Halbach spoke did not know when it happened (my guess was that it was in the summer). More irrelevant chaff.

It only happened once according to the friend that testified at trial. She does remember about the time that it occurred. It's not evidence that he killed her, but it is relevant to establishing that:

1. The victim knew Steven Avery and has visited the salvage yard before.
2. It's part of understanding Steven Avery's character and what kind of contact they have had in the past.

Not completely irrelevant and this sort of character testimony happens all the time at trial.

Here is the transcript if you are interested:

21 Q. Ms Pliszka, this is not your testimony before the
22 Court, but this is -- excuse me -- before the
23 jury, but this is simply retrieving from you some
24 very narrow information about a conversation that
25 you had with Teresa; do you understand that?

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. You were a receptionist with Auto Trader during
3 the fall of 2005; is that right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And what kind of relationship did you have with
6 Teresa; in other words, did you and Ms Halbach
7 have occasion to discuss matters of a more
8 personal nature?
9 A. Yes, we did.
10 Q. During the course of those discussions, did Ms
11 Halbach ever describe for you a contact or
12 incident that she had with the defendant, Steven
13 Avery?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Could you describe, first of all, the words that
16 she used and then we will describe the
17 circumstances surrounding that. So first tell us
18 what she told you.
19 A. After she was out there, around October 10th, it
20 was like about a week or so after that, she had
21 stated to me that he had come out in a towel.
22 Q. He meaning whom?
23 A. Steven Avery.
24 Q. Had come out where?
25 A. She didn't specify, she just said that he had

1 come out, just in a towel.
2 Q. All right. Did Ms Halbach describe for you
3 anything else about that, any other details about
4 seeing Mr. Avery in a towel?
5 A. The only -- I just said, really, and she said,
6 yeah, and she said, yeah, and she laughed and
7 just said kind of, ewww, you know.
8 Q. Okay. You said kind of what?
9 A. Ewww.
10 Q. Ewww.
11 A. Yeah, just that.
12 Q. I guess not in a positive way?
13 A. Not in a positive way, no.
14 Q. Did Ms Halbach -- or was she seeming to describe
15 a specific event; in other words, was she
16 remembering that event when she was describing it
17 for you?
18 A. Yes.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

no specific date

Here is the cross-examination:

Q. Hi. Do you think this was a week or more after October 10th?
A. Yes, that I talked to her. I don't know when the incident exactly was.
Q. Okay. But you're probably talking to Teresa Halbach October 17, or some time shortly after that?
A. Mm-hmm. Yes.
Q. She did not say that this had happened on October 10 or any specific date?
A. She did not specify the date, no.
Q. She didn't call you to tell you about this incident?
A. Not specifically, no, it just came up in conversation.

Based on this passage, I would say that Teresa talked to her friend about a week after she was at the Avery salvage yard, but that this is not necessarily when the towel incident happened.

 

[Lerxst]

Here is the cross-examination:

Q. Hi. Do you think this was a week or more after October 10th?
A. Yes, that I talked to her. I don't know when the incident exactly was.
Q. Okay. But you're probably talking to Teresa Halbach October 17, or some time shortly after that?
A. Mm-hmm. Yes.
Q. She did not say that this had happened on October 10 or any specific date?
A. She did not specify the date, no.
Q. She didn't call you to tell you about this incident?
A. Not specifically, no, it just came up in conversation.

Based on this passage, I would say that Teresa talked to her friend about a week after she was at the Avery salvage yard, but that this is not necessarily when the towel incident happened.

Okay so now it's up to you to explain why:

1. The whole incident is irrelevant if
2. The exact date that it occurred is relevant

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Shakespeare

Okay so now it's up to you to explain why:

1. The whole incident is irrelevant if
2. The exact date that it occurred is relevant

Why isn't it up to the person who brought up this incident to explain why it is relevant?

As I said, I think probably happened in the summer, and Steven had been lounging by his pool. If so, then Teresa continued to shoot photos at his yard after it occurred. If it bothered her at all, then it could not have bothered her that much. That is why the date matters.

If I were in the shower and I heard the doorbell ring, I would think nothing of answering the door wearing a towel. What's the big deal? That people are still talking about it is a testament to Mr. Kratz's ability to make much ado about nothing.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Another go-around on Fassbinder's control question

"Brendan knew Teresa had no tattoos, despite being told the contrary, Brendan was adamant he never remembers seeing any Tattoos. Thus he has seen Teresa naked."

This was discussed several months ago and shown to be a...misrepresentation...of what Brendan actually said.

Fassbinder: "Do you disagree with me when I say that?"
Dassey: "No, but I don't know what it was."

See also this video, starting at about 2:40.

 

[Lerxst]

Why isn't it up to the person who brought up this incident to explain why it is relevant?

As I said, I think probably happened in the summer, and Steven had been lounging by his pool. If so, then Teresa continued to shoot photos at his yard after it occurred. If it bothered her at all, then it could not have bothered her that much. That is why the date matters.

If I were in the shower and I heard the doorbell ring, I would think nothing of answering the door wearing a towel. What's the big deal? That people are still talking about it is a testament to Mr. Kratz's ability to make much ado about nothing.

I already explained that in the previous posts. It establishes that this was not just a random encounter as well as gives us insight into Avery's character. You don't agree obviously, and that's fine.

From her testimony it bothered Teresa enough to mention it to her friend, and the situation was described differently than your hypothetical situation in that she is implying Avery came out of his house and was outside in a towel. That's not something that most people would do.

It's not something that should be cherry picked and viewed out of context IMO. Taken together with other behaviors by Avery it is still relevant, not completely irrelevant as you have claimed.

 

[Essexman]

I already explained that in the previous posts. It establishes that this was not just a random encounter as well as gives us insight into Avery's character. You don't agree obviously, and that's fine.

From her testimony it bothered Teresa enough to mention it to her friend, and the situation was described differently than your hypothetical situation in that she is implying Avery came out of his house and was outside in a towel. That's not something that most people would do.

It's not something that should be cherry picked and viewed out of context IMO. Taken together with other behaviors by Avery it is still relevant, not completely irrelevant as you have claimed.

The Towel incident happened on October 5th.

Avery claimed he was at the pool swimming.

https://youtu.be/Xs3CZ6yCnTY?t=255

Which is a rather odd thing to do in 40 degree weather and expecting a business associate to visit. It’s clearly a lie as Teresa never mentioned this despite claiming he told Teresa about the pool.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

If it bothered her at all, then it could not have bothered her that much.

Couldn't it have? Women get creeped on daily. If women acted on every danger sign they'd never be able to leave the house. The problem is those danger signs are downplayed by everyone else *until* the danger takes her out, then she should have realized she was in danger and acted.

 

[Samson]

I see no satisfactory answer to why Steven Avery expected to get away with killing Teresa when the whole world knows he invited her to his residence.
It does not compute. A low IQ does not explain.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

warning signs

Couldn't it have? Women get creeped on daily. If women acted on every danger sign they'd never be able to leave the house. The problem is those danger signs are downplayed by everyone else *until* the danger takes her out, then she should have realized she was in danger and acted.

My initial thinking is that Ms. Halbach might have refused to shoot photos there any more. Yet your interpretation is also reasonable, and there is a third explanation, namely that she did feel concerned but lacked the leverage to refuse to work there. Then again, maybe people missed the warning signs regarding Bobby Dassey.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Why isn't it up to the person who brought up this incident to explain why it is relevant?

As I said, I think probably happened in the summer, and Steven had been lounging by his pool. If so, then Teresa continued to shoot photos at his yard after it occurred. If it bothered her at all, then it could not have bothered her that much. That is why the date matters.

If I were in the shower and I heard the doorbell ring, I would think nothing of answering the door wearing a towel. What's the big deal? That people are still talking about it is a testament to Mr. Kratz's ability to make much ado about nothing.

This must be a guy thing. I’d rather have hot pokers plunged into my eyes than to answer the door in nothing but a towel.

I can totally see why TH was grossed out by this. Unless the door was opened by one of those guys from that Australian Firefighters calendar, it would likely not sit well with any woman.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

did the jury even hear it?

I have done some casual reading on this subject, and from what I can gather, the judge did not let the jury hear Dawn's testimony about the towel incident. Scroll down to Point 8 in the linked article.
EDT
"As for her fear of Avery following the towel incident, Dean Strang, an attorney for the defense, explained that this assertion was “blown up” by a receptionist for ‘AutoTrader,’who testified that the subject came up during a short conversation about unusual or funny things that have happened on the job. “[Halbach’s] reaction when [Avery] came from his little splash pool in a towel was ‘ew,’ but not that she was unwilling to go back there,” Strang said. Ultimately, this evidence was excluded by the judge and never presented to the jury." link

 

[Essexman]

I see no satisfactory answer to why Steven Avery expected to get away with killing Teresa when the whole world knows he invited her to his residence.
It does not compute. A low IQ does not explain.

A low IQ does explain. It might be difficult for a reasonably intelligent person to fathom since they cannot put themselves in the shoes of someone that stupid.

Moreover criminals have committed dumber acts of murder, Michael Danaher for example.

 

[JTF]

Serial Fabricator

Much has been made about how MAM omitted most of the inculpatory evidence presented at trial, but for whatever reason, Avery's laundry list of contradictory statements has received far less publicity. It's not surprising that a sociopath or psychopath would lie on a consistent basis, but it appears that Avery's limited intellect has provided him with convenient excuses for some of his false statements.

 

[Samson]

A low IQ does explain. It might be difficult for a reasonably intelligent person to fathom since they cannot put themselves in the shoes of someone that stupid.

Moreover criminals have committed dumber acts of murder, Michael Danaher for example.

A low IQ does not get across the line.
He delivered an ambiguous crime scene and a fire that did as well as a crematorium.
He persuaded a girl to repair to his garage so he could shoot her execution style.
Not so dumb.
I am keen to discuss what he did.

 

[Essexman]

A low IQ does not get across the line.

You can contend that as much as you like. But it wont alter the evidence that shows Avery committed the crime.

He delivered an ambiguous crime scene and a fire that did as well as a crematorium.

Ambiguous? The victims charred remains are in his burn pit where he was seen having an 8 hour bonfire the night she died. The murder weapon is hanging up on his wall. His blood and DNA is inside the victims car. The victims car keys are in his bedroom and the victims belongings are in his burn barrel. He invited his door neighbor to participate and would admit they both raped and killed her. How is that ambiguous?

As for a crematorium. According to a text book written by the fire expert hired by Zellner, its not that difficult at all.

"Observations of open-air cremations in India indicate that a well-ventilated wood or coal fire with sufficient fuel can destroy most of an adult body in a few hours. A fully involved, wood-frame structure fire lasting one hour resulted in reduction of an adult male body to large bone fragments."

He persuaded a girl to repair to his garage so he could shoot her execution style.
Not so dumb.

He never asked anyone to repair anything. Where do you get this stuff from?

 

[Busta Capp]

Definition of repair

intransitive verb
1a : to betake oneself : go
//repaired to the judge's chambers

 

[JTF]

You can contend that as much as you like. But it wont alter the evidence that shows Avery committed the crime.



Ambiguous? The victims charred remains are in his burn pit where he was seen having an 8 hour bonfire the night she died. The murder weapon is hanging up on his wall. His blood and DNA is inside the victims car. The victims car keys are in his bedroom and the victims belongings are in his burn barrel. He invited his door neighbor to participate and would admit they both raped and killed her. How is that ambiguous?

As for a crematorium. According to a text book written by the fire expert hired by Zellner, its not that difficult at all.

"Observations of open-air cremations in India indicate that a well-ventilated wood or coal fire with sufficient fuel can destroy most of an adult body in a few hours. A fully involved, wood-frame structure fire lasting one hour resulted in reduction of an adult male body to large bone fragments."




He never asked anyone to repair anything. Where do you get this stuff from?

Additional evidence that inculpated Avery in this murder...

1) The victim's DNA was found on a bullet located in Avery's garage.

2) A portion of that garage lit up like a christmas tree when sprayed with Luminol.

3) Avery's DNA is found under the hood of the victim's vehicle.

This is an open and shut case, but with the help of Zellner and those who didn't watch MAM with a critical eye, the carnival barking will continue at a steady pace.