EPISODE 6
"TESTING THE EVIDENCE"
(Author's Note: "Doh!"
In my dad's FBI (he came aboard in 1962) and a majority of my own, (1983-2008), agents worked in open "bull-pens." Desks were lined up side-by-side, and facing another row. Imagine a shopping mall parking lot. You would think that in an organization as 'compartmentalized' as the FBI, you would not want other agents to hear what you were doing. But that was back in the day when 90% of what the FBI was doing was criminal investigation and not classified, counter-intelligence and/or counter terrorism.
The bullpen system was not created as a cost-saving factor; it was a J. Edgar Hoover mandate. Regardless of Hoover's 'eccentricities,' vindictiveness and whatever other evils people may ascribe to him (most of which have some basis in truth), he was also the father of modern forensics and criminology, and in my opinion had one foot planted firmly on either side of that fine line between genius and insanity. (Ask my dad, he met him during his tenure with the bureau).
One of Hoover's strokes of genius was the bullpen. He firmly believed that every agent should have as much information as possible about what other agents were investigating. It was an early form of mass intelligence sharing. One would literally hear what other agents were talking about on the phone, and they might, for instance be able to help. "Hey, you need someone inside the 'Lamplighter Club' on 6th and Wilshire? I've got an informant I can stiff in there for you..." or "Hey, I had a bank robbed by a guy who meets your suspect's description!" Cases were solved that way. But I think the greatest value of the bullpen was "coffee cup case reviews." Agents would grab a cup, put their feet up on their desks and talk to others about their cases. It was cathartic, fun and frequently resulted in "Aha!" moments.
Agents listening to others talk about their cases, unburdened by the case agent's deadlines or preconceived notions, would often see obvious problems with the case agent's conclusions or investigative plan. Many a time, I saw investigations destined for a train wreck put back on the rails by an astute comment from an otherwise uninvolved agent. Frequently, the astute comments would emanate from grizzled, senior agents like my own personal hero Dave Barker, who would begin his critique with, "Hey Sherlock...."
This process thickened agents' skins, forced them to come to grips with their own fallibility, and forced them to learn those important words, "I was wrong..." As we have seen in MaM, some investigators never learned those words.
I completely anticipated that these articles would be the web's version of the bullpen, and I am happy to see that proven true. In my last article, I wrote extensively about the fact that .22LR bullets do not (usually) possess the kinetic energy necessary to exit the skull, once fired into it. I stand by that statement. However, several readers pointed out something that should have been obvious to me, but that I missed: They reminded me that more than one bullet could have been fired, and that not all the bullets fired were certain to have hit the victim's head. If a bullet was fired into soft tissue like a forearm or a flank, and only had a few inches of flesh to penetrate, they would indeed exit, and could possibly then still have the victim's DNA aboard when exiting. They are correct. That said, it still does not solve the issue of why the bullet was discovered in a bloodless garage, nor does reveal (to me, at least) the condition of the face of the bullet.
However, I would like to thank the readers who pointed this out, thereby giving me the opportunity to say, "I was wrong..." I still have faith in the bulk of my conclusions, but yes, that particular bullet could have exited the body. Unlike in the FBI bullpen, though, I do not owe any of you a case of beer.)
On to the article....
Image may be NSFW.In my dad's FBI (he came aboard in 1962) and a majority of my own, (1983-2008), agents worked in open "bull-pens." Desks were lined up side-by-side, and facing another row. Imagine a shopping mall parking lot. You would think that in an organization as 'compartmentalized' as the FBI, you would not want other agents to hear what you were doing. But that was back in the day when 90% of what the FBI was doing was criminal investigation and not classified, counter-intelligence and/or counter terrorism.
The bullpen system was not created as a cost-saving factor; it was a J. Edgar Hoover mandate. Regardless of Hoover's 'eccentricities,' vindictiveness and whatever other evils people may ascribe to him (most of which have some basis in truth), he was also the father of modern forensics and criminology, and in my opinion had one foot planted firmly on either side of that fine line between genius and insanity. (Ask my dad, he met him during his tenure with the bureau).
One of Hoover's strokes of genius was the bullpen. He firmly believed that every agent should have as much information as possible about what other agents were investigating. It was an early form of mass intelligence sharing. One would literally hear what other agents were talking about on the phone, and they might, for instance be able to help. "Hey, you need someone inside the 'Lamplighter Club' on 6th and Wilshire? I've got an informant I can stiff in there for you..." or "Hey, I had a bank robbed by a guy who meets your suspect's description!" Cases were solved that way. But I think the greatest value of the bullpen was "coffee cup case reviews." Agents would grab a cup, put their feet up on their desks and talk to others about their cases. It was cathartic, fun and frequently resulted in "Aha!" moments.
Agents listening to others talk about their cases, unburdened by the case agent's deadlines or preconceived notions, would often see obvious problems with the case agent's conclusions or investigative plan. Many a time, I saw investigations destined for a train wreck put back on the rails by an astute comment from an otherwise uninvolved agent. Frequently, the astute comments would emanate from grizzled, senior agents like my own personal hero Dave Barker, who would begin his critique with, "Hey Sherlock...."
This process thickened agents' skins, forced them to come to grips with their own fallibility, and forced them to learn those important words, "I was wrong..." As we have seen in MaM, some investigators never learned those words.
I completely anticipated that these articles would be the web's version of the bullpen, and I am happy to see that proven true. In my last article, I wrote extensively about the fact that .22LR bullets do not (usually) possess the kinetic energy necessary to exit the skull, once fired into it. I stand by that statement. However, several readers pointed out something that should have been obvious to me, but that I missed: They reminded me that more than one bullet could have been fired, and that not all the bullets fired were certain to have hit the victim's head. If a bullet was fired into soft tissue like a forearm or a flank, and only had a few inches of flesh to penetrate, they would indeed exit, and could possibly then still have the victim's DNA aboard when exiting. They are correct. That said, it still does not solve the issue of why the bullet was discovered in a bloodless garage, nor does reveal (to me, at least) the condition of the face of the bullet.
However, I would like to thank the readers who pointed this out, thereby giving me the opportunity to say, "I was wrong..." I still have faith in the bulk of my conclusions, but yes, that particular bullet could have exited the body. Unlike in the FBI bullpen, though, I do not owe any of you a case of beer.)
On to the article....
Clik here to view.
MULTIPLE BURN SITES:
Wow.
This revelation is a game-changer. It was unclear to me from Episode 6, whether the bone fragments in each of the three burn locations were traced by DNA to Teresa Halbach. If they were human but not Teresa's, then Manitowoc County has a whole new problem. My comments will be based on my assumption that the bones were Halbach's.
First potential burn site was the quarry pile, which was a relatively long distance from the Avery trailer/garage. Second was "Burn Barrel #2" (which leaves open the question of what item wa designated "Burn Barrel #1" and what is its significance?) And finally, you have the Avery bonfire/burn-pit.
Here is my first assumption as an investigator: The body was burned only once. There is no need to burn it twice. It is possible that portions of the previously-burned body were dumped into an existing fire, but I consider that disposal, not evidence of the need to continue burning the body.
Even if I were trying to dispose of the body by burning it, and say, dumped the body in a fire and returned later only to find that the body was not consumed to my satisfaction, I would not move the bones to a different place to burn them, I would relight the fire in the same location, because obviously, the location had passed the first test--it hadn't been discovered. So,
Image may be NSFW.Wow.
This revelation is a game-changer. It was unclear to me from Episode 6, whether the bone fragments in each of the three burn locations were traced by DNA to Teresa Halbach. If they were human but not Teresa's, then Manitowoc County has a whole new problem. My comments will be based on my assumption that the bones were Halbach's.
First potential burn site was the quarry pile, which was a relatively long distance from the Avery trailer/garage. Second was "Burn Barrel #2" (which leaves open the question of what item wa designated "Burn Barrel #1" and what is its significance?) And finally, you have the Avery bonfire/burn-pit.
Here is my first assumption as an investigator: The body was burned only once. There is no need to burn it twice. It is possible that portions of the previously-burned body were dumped into an existing fire, but I consider that disposal, not evidence of the need to continue burning the body.
Even if I were trying to dispose of the body by burning it, and say, dumped the body in a fire and returned later only to find that the body was not consumed to my satisfaction, I would not move the bones to a different place to burn them, I would relight the fire in the same location, because obviously, the location had passed the first test--it hadn't been discovered. So,
Clik here to view.
1. Only one location was used to cremate Teresa's body.
So, how do we explain bones at three different sites?
The disturbing issue here is that if one had completely burned the body to the point that they were satisfied that no part of it would be useful as evidence, they would have no reason to move the remains/ashes. Therefore, I believe that whoever burned the body knew that the remains (bone fragments) were still potential evidence.
If I were the killer (or the person who burned the bones; they are not necessarily the same person(s)), I would be faced with a problem; what do I do with the small amount of remaining bones that I believed (see paragraph above) are still potential evidence? Easy, I would bury the bones, wait until they cooled and put them in a garbage bag and dump it in somebody's trash bin, or whatever it took to ensure that the bones were not discovered. With the remains now at a manageable volume, this would be relatively easy.
But the killer (or the person who burned the bones) did nothing of the kind. They transferred the bones to another location where another fire had taken place. A fire they likely would have known had taken place. Under this scenario, the body was turned after the Avery bonfire.
Dr. Leslie Eisenberg, Forensic Anthropologist, testified that at the quarry site, two fragments of human pelvic bone were found. The pelvic bone is roughly 18 inches by 6 inches and might weigh a few pounds. Burned and fragmented, it is substantially smaller, and could easily be moved in a container not much larger than a shoe box. Those fragments would not have been difficult to move.
But what if your need was to move the entire remains of Halbach from the quarry to the Avery burn pit?You would need a container entirely different. You would be shoveling the bones and ashes, likely from a pit still hot and filled with glowing coals and embers. You would need a large container and it could not be made of a substance which would either burn or melt. What would you use? What about a steel 55 gallon drum?
Image may be NSFW.So, how do we explain bones at three different sites?
The disturbing issue here is that if one had completely burned the body to the point that they were satisfied that no part of it would be useful as evidence, they would have no reason to move the remains/ashes. Therefore, I believe that whoever burned the body knew that the remains (bone fragments) were still potential evidence.
If I were the killer (or the person who burned the bones; they are not necessarily the same person(s)), I would be faced with a problem; what do I do with the small amount of remaining bones that I believed (see paragraph above) are still potential evidence? Easy, I would bury the bones, wait until they cooled and put them in a garbage bag and dump it in somebody's trash bin, or whatever it took to ensure that the bones were not discovered. With the remains now at a manageable volume, this would be relatively easy.
But the killer (or the person who burned the bones) did nothing of the kind. They transferred the bones to another location where another fire had taken place. A fire they likely would have known had taken place. Under this scenario, the body was turned after the Avery bonfire.
Dr. Leslie Eisenberg, Forensic Anthropologist, testified that at the quarry site, two fragments of human pelvic bone were found. The pelvic bone is roughly 18 inches by 6 inches and might weigh a few pounds. Burned and fragmented, it is substantially smaller, and could easily be moved in a container not much larger than a shoe box. Those fragments would not have been difficult to move.
But what if your need was to move the entire remains of Halbach from the quarry to the Avery burn pit?You would need a container entirely different. You would be shoveling the bones and ashes, likely from a pit still hot and filled with glowing coals and embers. You would need a large container and it could not be made of a substance which would either burn or melt. What would you use? What about a steel 55 gallon drum?
Clik here to view.
This leads us back to Burn Barrel #2 (BB2). Could the body have been burned in that container? Possibly, but keeping the fire going in that drum would have been difficult because it would have displaced the air necessary to burn, and would likely have required accelerants (flammable liquids, etc.) which would have left detectable traces inside the barrel and likely on at least some of the physical remains. I have heard no information from my admittedly limited vantage point that anybody saw a large burn being conducted in that container during the time Teresa was missing.
To me, the discovery of remnants of Teresa Halbach's body in BB2 is strong evidence that the primary burn site was at the quarry, and that the remains were moved -- via BB2 -- from the quarry to the Avery pit. Using a 40 pound, unweidly 55 gallon drum -- which might be reported missing -- to transport two pieces of pelvis is implausible, and doesn't explain why other remnants were found within.
Dr. Eisenberg testified that the bones at the Avery burn pit did not display the damage she would expect of samples which had been moved. What she failed to take into account was that the bones had been moved before she saw them, and without any precaution against damaging them. They were literally retrieved with shovels, sifted and boxed. That observation alone invalidated Eisenberg's theory about movement damage. Her other theory, that the majority of the bones would be left behind when moved was really not testimony about forensic anthropology, it was testimony having to do with forensic psychology, in which she has no more expertise (probably less) than anybody else in the courtroom.
Another forensic anthropologist, Dr. Scott Fairgrieve (a defense expert) testified that in his experience (not theory) when bones were moved after being burned, the location where the majority of the bones were found was the location to which they had been moved, not the location of the original burn. This seems more plausible to me; however, I have to point out that Fairgrieve was apparently hired by the defense.
I have wracked my brain, and have no reasonable explanation why somebody would have taken a small portion of the bones from Steven Avery's burn pit and transported them to the quarry site. I therefore consider that implausible. I'm open to discussing this, obviously, but why would the bones have been moved? There are certainly several reasons, but high on the list would be to implicate another person in the murder.
Image may be NSFW.To me, the discovery of remnants of Teresa Halbach's body in BB2 is strong evidence that the primary burn site was at the quarry, and that the remains were moved -- via BB2 -- from the quarry to the Avery pit. Using a 40 pound, unweidly 55 gallon drum -- which might be reported missing -- to transport two pieces of pelvis is implausible, and doesn't explain why other remnants were found within.
Dr. Eisenberg testified that the bones at the Avery burn pit did not display the damage she would expect of samples which had been moved. What she failed to take into account was that the bones had been moved before she saw them, and without any precaution against damaging them. They were literally retrieved with shovels, sifted and boxed. That observation alone invalidated Eisenberg's theory about movement damage. Her other theory, that the majority of the bones would be left behind when moved was really not testimony about forensic anthropology, it was testimony having to do with forensic psychology, in which she has no more expertise (probably less) than anybody else in the courtroom.
Another forensic anthropologist, Dr. Scott Fairgrieve (a defense expert) testified that in his experience (not theory) when bones were moved after being burned, the location where the majority of the bones were found was the location to which they had been moved, not the location of the original burn. This seems more plausible to me; however, I have to point out that Fairgrieve was apparently hired by the defense.
I have wracked my brain, and have no reasonable explanation why somebody would have taken a small portion of the bones from Steven Avery's burn pit and transported them to the quarry site. I therefore consider that implausible. I'm open to discussing this, obviously, but why would the bones have been moved? There are certainly several reasons, but high on the list would be to implicate another person in the murder.
Clik here to view.
OFF THE GRID
Another head-shaking moment for me was that the Avery burn-pit itself was not 'gridded.' Gridding is essentially a survey taken of the actual crime evidence location. Everything is photographed and mapped, identifying the location of every single item in that area in relation to every single other item. For instance, if leg bone fragments were found inside skull bones, it would be prima facie evidence that the bones had been moved somehow post-burning, or that the bones were simply dropped at the site in a pile. Gridding of a site where a body was burned should show (within certain parameters) bones in normal relationship to each other, with deviations for the affects of heat.
Gridding could have been powerful evidence and likely proven whether the Avery burn pit was the primary burn site or not. However, because Manitowoc and Calumet SO's did such a poor job of managing the scene, this crucial evidence was lost. The frustration of Wisconsin State Crime Lab forensic scientist John Ertl was palpable as he testified to the lack of proper procedure used by the deputies. Due to the destruction of the crime scene, the ability of the state lab to assist was drastically reduced.
One thing we know for sure: The bones of Teresa Halbach were moved. That is not in dispute. For Avery to have burned Teresa's body the night of the bonfire, he would have had to do so knowing that people might have shown up. The body would have to have been consumed dramatically quickly. The other possibility is that Avery burned the body at the quarry, then returned the remaining bones to his burn pit, which makes no sense at all.
I think that the evidence points strongly to the scenario of Teresa's body being burned at the quarry, then the remains transferred to Avery's pit in BB2. Additionally, Avery had an incinerator which would have made quick work of the body, negating his need to burn it in the open.
More evidence that Teresa's body was likely not burned behind Stephen Avery's house is the strong evidence that she was transported from the murder scene, wherever that was, in her own vehicle. It seems obvious at this point that she was not killed at the Avery trailer or garage. Why then, would Avery bring her back to his house to burn her body? Then, take only a few of the bones and put them in the quarry burn site. It makes no sense.
If the prosecutor believes that Stephen Avery killed Teresa Halbach in his trailer or his garage, and then piled her body in to the RAV4 to drive her 20 feet to the bonfire, Mr. Kratz has been overmedicating himself.
Another head-shaking moment for me was that the Avery burn-pit itself was not 'gridded.' Gridding is essentially a survey taken of the actual crime evidence location. Everything is photographed and mapped, identifying the location of every single item in that area in relation to every single other item. For instance, if leg bone fragments were found inside skull bones, it would be prima facie evidence that the bones had been moved somehow post-burning, or that the bones were simply dropped at the site in a pile. Gridding of a site where a body was burned should show (within certain parameters) bones in normal relationship to each other, with deviations for the affects of heat.
Gridding could have been powerful evidence and likely proven whether the Avery burn pit was the primary burn site or not. However, because Manitowoc and Calumet SO's did such a poor job of managing the scene, this crucial evidence was lost. The frustration of Wisconsin State Crime Lab forensic scientist John Ertl was palpable as he testified to the lack of proper procedure used by the deputies. Due to the destruction of the crime scene, the ability of the state lab to assist was drastically reduced.
One thing we know for sure: The bones of Teresa Halbach were moved. That is not in dispute. For Avery to have burned Teresa's body the night of the bonfire, he would have had to do so knowing that people might have shown up. The body would have to have been consumed dramatically quickly. The other possibility is that Avery burned the body at the quarry, then returned the remaining bones to his burn pit, which makes no sense at all.
I think that the evidence points strongly to the scenario of Teresa's body being burned at the quarry, then the remains transferred to Avery's pit in BB2. Additionally, Avery had an incinerator which would have made quick work of the body, negating his need to burn it in the open.
More evidence that Teresa's body was likely not burned behind Stephen Avery's house is the strong evidence that she was transported from the murder scene, wherever that was, in her own vehicle. It seems obvious at this point that she was not killed at the Avery trailer or garage. Why then, would Avery bring her back to his house to burn her body? Then, take only a few of the bones and put them in the quarry burn site. It makes no sense.
If the prosecutor believes that Stephen Avery killed Teresa Halbach in his trailer or his garage, and then piled her body in to the RAV4 to drive her 20 feet to the bonfire, Mr. Kratz has been overmedicating himself.
INVESTIGATOR'S NOTES:
HOW THE NEEDLE HAS MOVED
Ultimately, I now think that while Steven Avery remains a suspect, I wouldn't put him at or near the top of my list. I still want to know how Ryan Hillegas was able to hack into Teresa Halbach's voicemail. It smacks of an obsessed boyfriend who could not let go of a girlfriend who broke up with him. What better way for a stalker to monitor his victim then to be able to see who's calling her and listen to every voicemail left for her? That would be 'stalker gold.'
Another suspect high on the list (besides Hillegas or Bloedorn) is the person who was obsessively calling Halbach. Obviously, the film-makers are holding that information for a more dramatic reveal. I wonder if it's Hillegas.
And now, finally, I have to add two names to the list of potential suspects: Scott Tadych and Bobby Dassey. I'm not accusing them, but neither am I sure that either one were properly investigated by either Manitowoc or Calumet County Sheriff's Offices. Frankly, I'm beginning to think that nobody was properly investigated in this case.
- Scott Tadych had access to BB2
- Tadych and his girlfriend's son Bobby Dassey (who live in the same house) go hunting at the same time on the same day, and don't go together?
- Tadych and Bobby Dassey are each others' alibi witnesses?
- Start looking at Scott Tadych.
HOW THE NEEDLE HAS MOVED
Ultimately, I now think that while Steven Avery remains a suspect, I wouldn't put him at or near the top of my list. I still want to know how Ryan Hillegas was able to hack into Teresa Halbach's voicemail. It smacks of an obsessed boyfriend who could not let go of a girlfriend who broke up with him. What better way for a stalker to monitor his victim then to be able to see who's calling her and listen to every voicemail left for her? That would be 'stalker gold.'
Another suspect high on the list (besides Hillegas or Bloedorn) is the person who was obsessively calling Halbach. Obviously, the film-makers are holding that information for a more dramatic reveal. I wonder if it's Hillegas.
And now, finally, I have to add two names to the list of potential suspects: Scott Tadych and Bobby Dassey. I'm not accusing them, but neither am I sure that either one were properly investigated by either Manitowoc or Calumet County Sheriff's Offices. Frankly, I'm beginning to think that nobody was properly investigated in this case.