Kathleen Zellner

left profile pic of Kathleen Zellner

I called the Kathleen Zellner’s law office today asking to speak with Kathleen Zellner.  She was unavailable, I was told.  “Is there a message you would like me to give her?”, the receptionist asked.  “Yes”, I began,”I had thought of something last night that I believe is important.”  “Oh?”, he said, sounding momentarily interested.  “Yes”, I began, “The fact that I was trespassed from the property wouldn’t have been an action consistent with someone who had killed Teresa Halbach since I was there to propound a theory to them about my suspicion that it was someone else”.  “Or,” the receptionist snidely replied, “they simply didn’t want to be interrupted”.  “Clearly”, I said, “they didn’t want to be interrupted, and that’s exactly my point.  If the killer had been Scott Tadych or Chuck Avery, they wouldn’t have minded.  If they had ever become the serious object of suspicion, it would just be another arrow of deflection in their quiver to have another possible suspect”.

The receptionist, clearly growing agitated, then asked me to hold for a moment.  I did, and after a few minutes he got back on the line.  “You know, Steven Avery has representation at this point, and we would discourage you from talking to anyone involved in this matter, because you’re not a professional, and we are”.  The arrogance!  I proceeded to tell this person that anyone in America is allowed to ask anyone any question they want.  People are allowed to do that still.  Still!!!  But for some reason we don’t, or we leave it to ‘the professionals’.  Who was this guy to tell me what I should or shouldn’t do as the receptionist at a law firm?  Maybe during the few minutes I was on hold, he spoke to Zellner, and that was the message she had given him to tell me.  The man hung up the phone after accusing me of being insulting after I told him I thought it rather condescending to tell another person what they should or shouldn’t do so long as it was within the bounds of the law.

I decided I would write a note about this incident here on Overthrow, but didn’t have the receptionists name.  So I called back and talked to the man who answered the phone, the office manager as he described himself, and asked him if he was the man I had early spoken to.  After briefly describing the exchange I’d had roughly an hour earlier, the office manager exclaimed, “Oh yes, I heard about this”.  He then demanded to know who I was working with.  “No one,” I said.  “Well,” he retorted, his voice dripping with impertinence, “We have been hired as his counsel, and we are the ones working on this case!”  “I have no quarrel with that, sir, and I wish you success, but I think ordinary citizens are still free to ask questions of whomever they wish.  Freedom of speech is a constitutional guarantee.”  The office manager seemed to take exception to that idea.  “Well that freedom doesn’t give you the right to trespass, nor does it give you the right to interfere with a legal investigation.”  Apparently I was preceded by my (false) reputation.  “I have no idea what you guys are up to or what you’re doing, and whatever that is, why would anyone want to interfere with it?  Also, I never trespassed on the Avery property.  As an office manager at a law firm, I sincerely hope you understand the distinction.”  “Okay, why is it that you called?”  I wanted to get the name of the receptionist I’d spoken with earlier because I thought I’d mention it on overthrow.us.  As a matter of fact, I’d also like to know what you’re name is too, if you don’t mind?”  “I’m not giving that to you!”  Click.

Share

70 comments

  • If new evidence to the manner in which voicemail(s) were deleted is discovered, it would be paramount to an exoneration of both of these unfortunate and unwilling actors. It stands to reason that once TH left her last appointment, she was confronted by an assailant. Exactly two strong theories come to the surface as to how that encounter came to be. Someone had access to her schedule (essentially knew the general area where she would be at certain time) or an unknown agent was actively following her. The genius in who did this crime actually has pulled off a triple fake out. Exceedingly weak circumstantial evidence pointing at an obvious “known” deviant in this case who happens to be unbelievably honest and soft target, SA. The rush to judgement is only eclipsed and strengthened later by a BD, who by all accounts, is a marshmallow of a kid, too pristine to even get close to a ‘bombfire’. Which leaves with an a terribly incomplete investigation of what is really a professional style hit made to look like something out of the movie ‘Seven’. Except, when the killer beat that voicemail password out of TH in order to cover tracks, TH left a tiny bit of evidence behind. When it gets blown open, there are another 20,000 similar cases long past the mire the US , but none so horrifically detailed on camera…

    or the cops did it soup to nuts. :)

    • There’s no need for a nefarious explanation for the deleted voicemail messages. Depending on which Cingular plan Teresa Halbach had, messages would have been automatically deleted after 14 days or 21 days. So, a couple of messages auto-deleted and freed up some space.

      • That’s a good point, parminides. I’d thought of that too, but haven’t seen it mentioned by anyone else yet.

      • Auto delete? The man in the mirror checking the scratches on his hands wasn’t betting on auto delete. Remember, there was testimony by a co-worker that somebody was blowing up her cell phone? Constant Garbage In Garbage Out with the evidence, so frustrating.

        • Yeah, I don’t think auto delete was at play here in any way. It’s the oldest messages which are deleted first, in any case.

        • But we don’t know what message(s) was (were) actually deleted, do we? I haven’t looked for the message records (not talking about recordings themselves). One was flashed on screen during MAM. Haven’t seen it referenced since.

    • I think you meant tantamount instead of paramount.

  • I , like millions of others , that saw the documentary thought that they were innocent .
    But after reading the transcript of Brandon on Feb 27 at police headquarters ( not the school ) I feel they are guilty . Brandon is not coerced , and freely gives information , including that Steven threatened him . This interview was not in the documentary . If it was , I feel more people would feel they were guilty .
    I really feel that Brandon was not lying in this interview .
    Other facts that make me think they are guilty , Brandon’s pants had bleach on it . He stated in another interview that they cleaned the garage with bleach .
    On the phone with his mom , she asks if Steven did it . He says “ya”. Why would he lie to his mom about something so horrific ?

    • I agree Ava. Everything left out of pseudo documentary leaned toward Steve Avery and Brandon. But I also agree with Daniel, Ryan had typical rage ful bf motive.

  • The first amendment is not a right between private parties. It’s a contract between the government and the citizens. You have a right to speak to a private party but you don’t have a right to be heard.

  • I’ve tried to reply 4 times to JLWhitaker’s comment of January 27, 2016 at 2:35 pm. I don’t know if this will go through, so I’ll keep it short. I learned about additional evidence that voicemail messages have been deleted: Tom Pearce’s testimony together with Exhibit 372. I have to eat some crow on that one. I read testimony from Laura Schadrie (Cingular store manager) and Anthony Joseph Zimmerman (Cingular network engineer). Neither mentioned auto-deletion. I also read testimony of Bobbie Dohrwardt of Calcom (Steven Avery’s carrior). There could be other phone experts I haven’t read. I’m jumping around in my reading.

  • Not sure if this is relevant or not but the online petition to the whitehouse requesting that manitowoc county and calumet county sheriffs be federally investigated has been closed with less than half the needed signatures with a week still to go to collect signatures.

    Only thing I can think is that it has been determined that there is enough info to open a federal investigation and the petition is not necessary.

    Any other thoughts?

    • Can you tell when it was closed? Hopefully there will be an announcement from the White House soon with an explanation. I don’t think they would close something with this high a profile without explaining. Keep us posted if you spot something. I’m sure it will pop up in the media, too. In fact, I’ll tweet a guy who’s covering.

    • I just looked. It’s still open.

      https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/initiate-federal-investigation-sheriffs-department-manitowoc-county-and-calumet-county-wisconsin

      Maybe you were looking at the old one re exonerating Steve? That wasn’t legally possible because it’s a state case, not Federal.

      • No it wasn’t the old one. When it said petition closed the first thing I did was looked at the number and of signatures, it was like 46,790. I refreshed the screen a couple of times. I really wish I would have screen shot it.

        Perhaps it was a quick maintenance type issue. I’ll try to make a point to check it again tomorrow around the same time to see if it is a recreateable occurrence.

        Weird.

    • Ok, I should have screen shot it because now it appears to be open again. Hmmmm. That was weird.

  • For the record, I saw this post when it first went up and before anyone posted but have remained quiet.

    Only thing I’m going to say at this point is about Daniels perceived lack of email response. Surely you realize that they are busy and in receipt of a lot of emails. Receipt of unsolicited emails may take more than a few hours to respond to. Just saying…..

  • Two repeat post by parminides.

  • My consakeions came from a mixture of research, intuition, and probabilities. Of everything I’ve read, and I’ve read a lot, I’ve never commented on anyone’s site but yours. I’ve never emailed anyone but you. I’d be lying if I said your blog wasn’t the nail in the coffin for my Ryan suspicions, and because of that I share my thoughts and research only here. My lease isn’t up until March, or I’d be making the trip with you. Writing, reading, speculation, all that can be done from any desk with a laptop on top of it..but no one has been in the thick of it. No one actually went there, no one actually talked to that family, no one but you. And if someone else has, they haven’t been keen on sharing. If you are there in March, or you wanna stay in Tennessee till March,I’ll meet you there. It’s time a stand was taken, if not for Avery then for every other man and woman behind bars for someone else’s crime. If we care this much, let’s prove it. Privacy is limited, no one is safe. Email me about meeting up if you’re up for it. I’m tired of this shit.

    • For the life of me I cannot figure out what the word consakeions could possibly be? I’ve ran it through Google, my phone , and asked a few people. We cannot figure out what it is?

  • I’m on record admiring your enthusiam and drive, but you go about things the wrong way. What does it tell you that you have alienated and/or antagonized the very people you’re trying to help (the Avery’s and Steven Avery’s new attorney)? It took me less than a minute with Google to find http://www.kathleentzellner.com/contact/, which has a contact form, email address for the law firm, and fax number. You should have relayed your information by one of these methods instead of pestering them on the phone. Can you imagine how busy those people are? Think about this: you are actively trashing Kathleen Zellner and her staff on overthrow.us, and the only reason that you didn’t use the staff’s real names is that they wouldn’t give them to you. These people represent Steven Avery’s best chance of getting out prison, and it boggles my mind that you are trashing them. I think you’ve strayed pretty far from your goals. I consider this comment constructive criticism, and if you delete it after all that talk about free speech above, I’m out of here.

    • This is a duplicate comment…all but for the tail end…I’m for freedom of speech, but I’m not going to let my site be run over and degraded by a gang of trolls (not call you one, by the way). Comment moderation is an important activity to ensure people aren’t being bullied and that the comments are staying on point. I’ve been to a million online discussions, as I think we all have by now, that were dragged off topic by the first troll that showed up and never recovered. That’s no going to happen here as long as I have anything to do with it. The impolite comment bin is where the troll comments go, and they’re available for $1, or for free if you can’t afford that much. All money raised goes to a good cause.

      • You have my blessing to delete this mini-thread. I posted it because I thought my first (similar) comment didn’t go through.

  • I’m on record admiring your enthusiasm and drive. But you go about things the wrong way. Doesn’t it tell you something that you’ve antagonized and/or alienated the very people you are trying to help (the Averys and Steven Avery’s new lawyer)? The very people who should be your allies? You could have emailed or faxed your ideas to their office instead of pestering them on the phone. It took me less than a minute to find a contact form, fax number, and email address for her law office at http://www.kathleentzellner.com/contact/. Think about this: on overthrow.us you’re trashing the people (Ms. Zellner and her staff) who have the best chance of helping Steven Avery. The only reason you didn’t trash the staff by name is that they didn’t give you their names. Think about that. It’s pretty mind-boggling to me.

    • Blame the victim, bow to authority. You weren’t there, you didn’t hear what they said, or how condescendingly they said it. I did contact them by the way through your approved channels. No response. I wasn’t trashing her people or her staff, merely relaying what they had said to me, and how they had said it. When you don’t fall into some category that society officially recognizes in some way, you’re bound to be disliked. These people, and plenty of others scoff at me, and look down their noses. And when I tell them they’re being arrogant, I’m the one who’s being rude? And you take their side? As far as the Avery’s go, at least none of them were ever RUDE. If their reaction had been different, no one would have said a thing about my going there. People seem to have little concept of how opinion is made or swayed. Often, once it’s set, it’s as if it’s set in cement, and it’s very difficult to reset it. There are still those who think it outlandish that I went to someone’s house on Christmas Day as if that were the day we’re all supposed to stay indoors and avoid everyone.

      • I’ve experienced great condescension for many years. I know how you feel. I fall into few of society’s categories myself. I know how you feel. I guess that’s part of what attracts me to your site. But I *strongly* feel that you’re going about things the wrong way. You have already made enemies of the people who have the best chance of getting Steven Avery out. Think about it. It didn’t have to happen that way. (By the way, I appreciate you not funneling my comment into the mental health folder.)

        • If, after meeting someone for a few minutes they’re your enemy, then there’s something wrong with how you pick your enemies. I talked to a receptionist and an office manager. They were rude. Often the receptionist is rude no matter what you’re calling about. IT’s the only power he has, in many cases, and a lot of them secretly wish they had jobs with more prestige. I think they were just getting their advice from Zellner who was working a few feet away (but I could be wrong). I just want to know why they feel so threatened by me, especially if we’re essentially on the same trail? Don’t forget that we’re dealing with an insanely ambitious person here, and I doubt she would welcome being upstaged by a tatterdemalion like me. But who cares what happens as long as Steven and Brendan are freed. That’s the important thing here, and though her staff were rude to me, I felt, I do wish them well.

        • Suppose I called the White House switchboard and said, “quick, I need to speak to President Obama because I figured out how to balance the budget.” How far do you think I’d get? There are more than 300 million people in this country. They have to apply some filters on people seeking the President’s attention. There’s no way around it. This is analogous to what you did, and then you got mad at them. Maybe they could have handled it in a more courteous fashion. Like you said, I didn’t hear the conversations. But they must be insanely busy. If I were you I’d give them a break.

        • At this point, parminides, I’m going to have to give you a brief lesson in a matter of rhetoric called the Straw Man Fallacy. Here it is:

          Description of Straw Man

          The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of “reasoning” has the following pattern:

          Person A has position X.
          Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
          Person B attacks position Y.
          Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
          This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

          I never said anything about being upset or disappointed that I wasn’t able to get through, or that I was upset that I didn’t receive a response. So no, it’s not analogous at all to what I did. The take away here is why they seemed to fell threatened by me, and why they felt the need to give me unsolicited advice. I don’t care that they were rude, I just want to know why there were acting so weird.

        • Do you really think that Steven Avery is innocent? Do you really? Or, is it more interesting to believe in conspiracies and framing? It is more interesting, however, in this case, I believe, it is not correct. Lots of shady characters, indeed. But, when the dust settles and all of the court transcripts have been read (and the biased emotions from the doc have mellowed) there’s evidence pointing toward SA that cannot be explained. If you dig deep down (realizing there’s more to it) you’ll find bones/items burned in places that could not have been planted based on timing and discovery. *67 x2…”Back to patio door”…anger and sexual deviance and impulse have a date. Bonfire celebration.

        • Let’s do this site some good, and stop talking about what you presume Daniel to be doing wrong. Focus on yourself, or don’t, who cares? But please, for the sake of overthrow convince me it wasn’t Ryan, because I’m pretty positive it was. And if it wasn’t, show me an alibi.

        • That’s not how it works. *You* and your like-minded friends must convince the world that Ryan did it. With solid evidence. Not hunches and innuendo. Listen to your statement: “convince me that it wasn’t Ryan, because I’m pretty positive it was.” There were many shady circumstances and characters revealed in MaM. Yet you hyperfocus on one suspect to the exclusion of others. Who does that remind you of? I fear that you and your allies have developed severe tunnel vision.

        • Parminides, before you comment on one of my comments, read the rest of them. I’ve been trying to find alternate suspects the whole time. See I still believe in the presumption that we are all innocent until proven guilty. I’m pretty positive it was Ryan after looking at everyone else the in the same way. You don’t think it was Ryan? That’s cool..why? I can show you why I think it was, you can show why you think it wasn’t. Deal?

        • (This is a reply to captain’s last post.)

          I don’t know who did it. It could have been Ryan. It could have been Steven Avery. It could have been someone else.

          I have read large chunks of the transcripts (from the trials of both Steven Avery and Brendon Dassey’s). I’ve read all the testimony of Mike Halbach, Ryan Hillegas, Bobbie Dohrwardt (a Callcom employee), Laura Schadrie (a Cingular store manager), and Anthony Joseph Zimmerman (Cingular wireless network engineer).

          I’m not going to defend Manitowoc or Calumet County law enforcement because I think that they don’t deserve it. That obscene press conference right after Brendan’s “confession” showed that Kratz had no interest in a fair trial. On the other hand, I’ve come to believe through my research that the picture painted by the documentary is also misleading. The defense sowed seeds of doubt wherever they could. That’s their job. I don’t fault them for that. However, I feel that the documentary magnified these seeds of doubt disproportionately, without giving anything close to equal weight to the counter arguments. I’ve come to this conclusion little by little, after examining lots of materials.

          Let me just throw out one example from day 18 testimony of Mr. Zimmerman. Zimmerman testified that both the number of messages and the length of each method in Teresa Halbach’s voicemail would have determined whether was full (p.171). [He never explained the details of how that worked, which I found a little fishy right off the bat.] So Buting asked if it was his opinion that the voicemail messages in the printout/exhibit would fill up her voicemail, and Zimmerman said, “This appears that it would not have filled up the full capacity of the mailbox.” (p.172)

          Note how *nonrigorous* this is. Note that he gave his opinion without any real justification or explaination for it. Buting concludes, and Zimmerman agrees, that some messages must have been deleted (p.172-73) [because her voicemail had indisputably been full at some point after her disappearance]. [Note that this conclusion also hinges on Zimmerman’s unexplained and unjustified opinion that the voicemail was no longer full.] Zimmerman admits that from the record used in court, there’s no way to tell if someone called in to erase messages.

          I couldn’t believe when I read all this. Apparently, it was never established with certainty that anyone deleted messages from Teresa’s voicemail. It just “appears that it would not have filled up the full capacity of the mailbox” (after it had previously been full). How is it possible that some expert couldn’t testify about this with certainty? How is it that it’s taken as the Gospel by the Ryan Hillegas lynch mob that someone deleted one or more messages from Teresa’s account? Maybe. Maybe not. It’s not at all evident to me from reading the actual trial transcripts (i.e., the cross examination from Buting).

          Maybe more conclusive evidence exists somewhere else. If so, I haven’t seen it. So if you want to debate me, tell me what evidence there is that *anyone* deleted *any* of Teresa’s voicemail messages, other than this ambiguous, unchallenged testimony from Mr. Zimmerman. (Perhaps it went unchallenged by the prosecution because they had no idea what the defense was up to or how big this would become.) If I’m wrong and there is other evidence that voicemail messages were deleted, I’ll be happy to admit it. I’d be happy to know what that *conclusive* evidence is.

        • I don’t think there’s a “Ryan Hillegas lynch mob”. I for one am against the death penalty, and those I know who are for it generally don’t want lynching to be brought back given the wildly disproportionate number of black Americans on death row.

          To the thrust of your argument, I think it’s really good to question what happened to messages, who might have deleted them, the disk storage allocated to a subscriber’s voice mail account and so forth. But even if no messages were deleted, what we DO know, by the testimony Ryan himself offered, is that he was able to “guess” both Teresa’s username and password. He made odd expressions when he confessed to this as countless people have noted. I am simply speculating that he had access all along, and if had ever been stalking Teresa by following her movements by illicitly obtained digital information, he should be considered a very strong suspect until he can be cleared by a strong alibi. Adding to this, I don’t feel any of the alternative suspects are nearly as strong as he is.

        • I’m with Parminedes on this one re the voice messages. It all depends on how a voicemail system is designed. It could have been full as stated by several people on the Tuesday and Wednesday. One would hope that someone saved the messages that WERE there as part of the investigation.

          How could space have opened up? Easy. A system clean of old unsaved messages that hit their end date. Pure coincidence. If the system clean was scheduled to happen between the time of the ‘full’ state and the opening for recording a new message, it would appear that someONE deleted a message when it could have been a computer deletion.

          If Mike listened to messages, as he says he did, but didn’t save them, they also could have been later part of the system purge.

          Did anyone ask that question of anyone from Cingular? I’m not that far into the transcripts. Have just finished Day3.

        • I posted about the deleted voicemail issue on reddit. I stand corrected! Tom Pearce’s testimony (day 1) together with Exhibit 372 does provide evidence that some voicemail messages were deleted. That connection may not have been made in court, but it’s there. I was wrong. Details at https://redd.it/42zwvd.

        • JLWhitaker, I don’t remember anyone testifying about that kind of thing. But you make an excellent point. My current phone plan deletes unsaved voicemail messages fairly quickly. Your point notwithstanding, I have to concede that there is evidence that voicemail messages were deleted (or purged in the manner you describe). I set up a reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/42zwvd/evidence_that_teresa_halbachs_voicemail_messages/) about this topic, and someone offered pointe out that Tom Pearce’s testimony, together with Exhibit 372, indicate that messages disappeared. I have to eat a little crow on that one.

        • Rolling Stone canvasses a range of unanswered questions including the voicemail quandary.

          http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/making-a-murderer-10-questions-we-still-have-20160107

        • In response to JLWhitaker: Two people from Cingular testified. The issue of deleted voicemails has bothered me so much that I posted a subreddit. I seems that overthrow.us is not accepting links in comments. If you want to check it out, do a google search of “evidence that Teresa Halbach’s voicemail messages were deleted.” The upshot is that there IS more evidence of deleted voicemails! Testimony from Tom Pearce together with Exhibit 372. I have to eat a little crow on this one.

        • Ha. Show me how Ryan burned her body in SA’s pit and her goods in his burn barrel without SA or anyone else noticing? And, if you want to be all “police conspiracy” about it, then tell me how they said “Ryan, it’s cool you killed your ex-girlfriend that you’ve been just friends with for years now but just snapped and burned her up, let’s frame SA”. “Somehow we’ll get onto his property and make it look like he burned her and her stuff in his pit and burn barrel (BEFORE her car is found) even though he has this bad ass dog guarding that can bark like crazy and shit…” Uh, yeah.

  • You’ve got to be kidding me. You actually think they are worried YOU are going to solve the crime? That’s a joke. They at professionals.

    • I had been traipsing through the woods without an official certificate stating that I could ask anyone any question I pleased, and then I met The Wizard who handed me an official looking piece of paper that said I was allowed. Every since then I’ve always assumed I was allowed. No joke.

  • It makes sense, that if last Christmas you were at a convicted murderers family home trying to offer up a different possible suspect outside the Avery family for the crime, that they would hear you out and not try to get you off the property. (via the same police that wrongfully and knowingly convicted SA twice before I might add) I’m still confused as to why MCPD was even called honestly. It’s been since the day you posted details of the visit since I’ve actually read the post, but didn’t you say it was his dad that called them, and lenk that showed up?

    On a different note, I’d like to just say something:
    I’ve read this post recently on the “German man” I’ve got his real name and fb accounts and his wife’s name and arrest records, blah blah blah. The only thing that stands out is that they bred German shepherds, and they lived 7 minutes from the salvage yard(even had an alternate route to the quarry/back road to Averys) I’m sure I saw pictures or maybe a clip of a German shepherd on the Avery lot and it’s possible the Averys got this dog from down the road. I’ve also read about the ziperers and how likely it is that Teresa left SA house and went to her second photo shoot at the zipperer residence. Very compelling stuff.
    HOWEVER
    None of the stories I’ve read, none of the research I’ve done, not one other persons account of that day that I’ve heard, clicks.
    Only Ryan clicks.
    The phone record has a call at 4 something that had a CDMA code on it which is the code used when you block someone. All those calls in the morning were from Ryan hillegas (he admits to talking to her about a Halloween party that night) and she was getting so tired of his harassment that she blocked him later that day a little after 4 p.m.(after work was done) Ryan, having followed Teresa to Manitowoc, was enraged that she would no longer take his calls. So he followed her to a location in Manitowoc (maybe this “Germans” house because it was up for sale and in the country, and having just decided to finally block Ryan out of her life she wanted to snap some photos of a potential new place to live) and confronting her took a turn for the worst and he brutally murdered her. Ryan is the only one that makes sense no matter what scenario you lay out. Ryan killed her, and Steven is paying for it.

    • You need to look at the phone record again. anything after 2.41 did not connect to her phone. It was not findable on a tower. The last call was CFNA: Call forward, No Answer. E.g it rang out and went to voicemail. She was in the middle of doing photos. I would equally not answer a call at that point.

      Where are you getting the CDMA code? I don’t see it.

      Interesting point about the German shepherd dogs. Yes, Steve had one chained behind his trailer overlooking the burn pit.

      • You’re absolutely right, my mistake,it is CFNA I apologize for the confusion. Honestly the F looked closed to me. You’re right call forward not answered. So how about this:
        Teresa was supposed to photo two different sites, the Averys and the zipperers. She couldn’t find the later and SA was calling to see why she was late (he was waiting for her) she hangs up with him. Three minutes later she calls auto trader for 4 minutes, most likely to tell them that she was going to do the Avery place first because she knew where it was and she couldn’t find the other place(zipperers) so she heads that way, and pulls in as SA calls her again, then he sees her, so he hangs up. (That’s why it was so short) she leaves SA around 230-245 and gets to the zips(just shortened the name) around 3 to as late as 330 and it could have been LATER than that (check joellen zipperers first testimony) then the call from Avery again..That’s the one piece I can’t fit..was it for sure an incoming call? Could Teresa have called SA? Maybe because she was desperate for help?

      • That 2:41 call that she did not answer….I soooo want to know who that was calling. It recorded for 1:20 mins. In Weigarts report about getting the “printouts”. From Ryan and working backwards from the last call, he starts with the 2:27 call. The 2:41 was the last to go through while the phone was still on because it pinged towers, correct? The phone records are just so weird. There is the one call that Steven admits asking to ask her to come back to photograph a flatbed at 4:30….then no one even tries to call or leave messages until the next day? And sadly I think any digital info is forever gone since it was not requested by the investigators or state. I figure they knew it would hurt their case rather than help it, so they chose not to get that info. That investigation was so biased and tunnel vision from the beginning. It infuriates me! When is SOMEONE close enough to the situation gonna feel enough guilt that justice was not done for Teresa and her family and SPILL?

        • Thank you for that sharp analysis.

        • Can you cite where SAvery said he called after 4pm? Or is this just something that Kratz dreamt up?

          Too many phone records were omitted from this investigation to confirm who they say were involved in the various calls. The evidence may exist in the prosecution/detective files. It’s hard to know what exists and doesn’t. Jerry Buting in his interview w/ Michael Spratt yesterday was explaining the Brady problem: how do you know what the state is not passing on?

        • You’re right that for a lot of this stuff, at least for now, we’re having to take the word of people like Ken Kratz. He did mention that a call was made to Teresa Halbach by Steven Avery at 4:35 so that Avery could establish an alibi. I think Nancy Grace said that Avery left a message asking Halbach why she never showed up that day. I have yet to confirm this. What I will say is that if Kratz was wrong about this one small detail, the he’s wrong about everything. Ken Kratz contends that Steven Avery, in his previous calls to Teresa Halbach used *67 to “lure” her to the property, he didn’t bother defeating caller ID on his last call because he knew she was already dead and wouldn’t be answering. If Steven made a call to Teresa Halbach’s phone at this time, it’s very important to know what was said. If a message wasn’t left, then there is no way Steven was trying to leave an alibi, and you may as well deduce his innocence just from that because he must have been operating under the misapprehension that Teresa was still alive when he made that final call.

        • Can’t reply directly to Daniel’s reply to me.

          It’s worse than that. The 4.37 call that shows TH’s phone was NOT on was placed from Chicago. It sure wasn’t Steve Avery calling, that’s for sure.

        • http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Wisconsin-DOJ-Report-Fassbender.pdf
          Page 15, Steven says he called her back later but she did not answer. Doesn’t say whether he left a message. Maybe he did and that is why his attorneys implied some messages were deleted? I think the reason all the calls after 2:40 say Chicago is because the phone was off by then and all calls went to voicemail server central location which was likely Chicago instead of pinging nearby. This report is also interesting …. Read where it says Steven tells them someone named Tammy Weber told him he was being set up by the cops. I think that should have been *Wellner, not Weber. I wonder if she has any good info she could share?

    • Right. Just curious, how did you come to your conclusions?

    • they did not breed German Shepherds at that time, did not know the Averys and the wife only lived there for 3 months, so you are all wrong

  • They will probably lose this case though she has a stellar rep for getting people exonerated. This may just be a show for her name to get tons of publicity. Just like Gloria Alred takes on cases she knows she cannot win but her name is the most known in her field.

    • In some ways I think the lawyer-as-hero trope does active harm because, as many on this blog and elsewhere have expressed, now that wonder lawyer Zellner is on the case we can all go back to doing crossword puzzles or whatever. What I’m saying is why leave it to someone else? If you believe in Steven Avery’s innocence, let’s go to Wisconsin by the tens of thousands. Let’s hold a vigil outside of the prison every night. LET’S FIGHT!!! Fuck institutions if they aren’t responsive to popular will. Rise up if you have to. That would be far more entertaining than watching television.

    • You could not be more wrong about Zellner. She does not need the attention. She’s taking the case because she’s convinced he’s innocent. She will not defend a guilty person. If their is a person that can win this case it’s her. I have seen her do it to many times before to have any doubt. She is the reason why I’m convinced Avery is innocent.

  • They will probably lose this case though she has a stellar rep for getting people exonerated. This may be just a show for her name to get tons of publisity. Just like Gloria Alred takes on cases she knows she cannot win but her name is the most known in her field.

  • Ass hats. They are probably scared someone posing as Kenny the Creeper is trying to get info. I think you’d have better success emailing her. On the phone you can’t really verify your identity. They can laugh and scoff if they’d like but they’d be better served actually keeping their ears and eyes open. Setting up like an “idea” or theory clearing house. It’s a little surprising to me, but then maybe not. Hope she’s in this for the right reasons and not just to be an attention whore. And you should have told him that the was no “legal investigation” to interfere with going on when you first went there….they were not representing Steven then. Did they ask for any credentials or background before saying “leave it to the professionals”. Anyway, sorry that attitude gets under my skin, BUT, like I said…you may want to email. My experience is that receptionists and office managers and secretaries that work in office where the public has to “go through them” to get to the “professional” can tend to get a God complex. They are the keeper of the gates so they become all knowing too, despite the fact that there are likely no credentials behind their own names. And from personal experience, often it is not the professional’s attitude at all that they think they are coveying.