The Faulty Chain of Kratz’s Logic

The words "circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works arranged in a circle

By now, I hope, even apologists for serial sexual harasser, Ken Kratz, realize that his continual insistence in the significance of Steven Avery having once allegedly opened the door wearing nothing but a towel is laughable.

Except that it isn’t.  See, Kratz’s woodpile of “excluded evidence”, is actually a chain of logic leading to a particular conclusion.  It’s important that it be seen this way because if you can destroy one link, the entire chain breaks, and Ken Kratz’s argument all but evaporates.  We are obliged, therefore, to take the opening the door in a towel claim very seriously because it sets up what follows in Ken Kratz’s theory.

To recap, this is Ken Kratz’s theory:

  • Steven Avery opens his front door in a towel (allegedly)
  • Teresa Halbach becomes wary of Steven Avery because he opened the door in a towel
  • Steven Avery must now cleverly lure Teresa Halbach to Avery Salvage by using *67, giving a fake name, and someone else’s phone number

If Steven Avery had never opened the door in a towel, Teresa Halbach would never have become wary of him, and there would never have been any need to use *67, a fake name, or someone else’s address.

There is also a flaw of reasoning that I want to point out in this theory. For all that Kratz claims to make the remotest amount of sense, Steven Avery would had to have been aware of Teresa Halbach’s wariness.  What proof is there that he had such awareness?  Well, according to Ken Kratz’s circular logic, the very fact that he used *67!  No evidence is ever put forward other than Steven Avery’s use of *67 that he had knowledge that Teresa Halbach feared him in any way.  But if you stop and think about it, how could he have known?

Well, you might say he could have known, ipso facto, he opened the door in a towel.  Unfortunately, this is yet again another example of circular reasoning, and one which is undermined by how Teresa Halbach herself is reported to have interpreted the event.


Manitowoc County Circuit Judge Patrick Willis would not allow Dawn Pliszka, an Auto Trader receptionist at the time, to testify about one of Halbach’s previous encounters with Avery.

“She had stated to me that he had come out in a towel,’’ Pliszka said while the jury was outside of the courtroom. “I just said, ‘Really?’ and then she said, ‘Yeah,’ and laughed and said kinda ‘Ew.’’’

There is nothing there to suggest that Teresa became wary of Steven Avery for any reason.  She simply responded the way you’d expect any twenty-five-year-old woman to respond when seeing a flabby middle aged man of forty three with his shirt off.

I’m sorry people, but once again none of this makes a single drop of sense. And I implore all readers to tell me what I’ve gotten wrong here: If Steven Avery was trying to “lure” Teresa Halbach to the Avery Salvage yard, as Ken Kratz claims, why would he have called her at all?  I mean, what if she had answered the phone?  She might have done that, right?  No way Steven Avery could have known whether she would or wouldn’t have, right?  So, if Steven Avery were truly trying to “lure” Teresa Halbach to the property, the surest way for him to blow this brilliant plan was for him to call her.  Twice!

Ken Kratz’s theory also requires us to believe that Steven Avery’s supposed measures to lure Teresa Halbach to the property were successful.  Again, this is impossible to believe.  She’d been to the property on at least fourteen prior occasions (people keep saying only five, but fourteen is the number reported in People magazine).  It’s where the Avery’s lived, including Steven.  If the trickery that Kratz alleges were actually afoot, she would have been rather dense to have been fooled by it.  She had to have know that there was more than reasonable expectation that she was going to run into Steven.

Wikipedia entry on Circular Reasoning




  • “You are rapidly losing what sliver of credibility you have.” Daniel Luke (to me), 02/11/2016 at 2:16pm. I had already written what follows below when I saw Daniel’s comment. At this point I’m just going to let slide. If anyone is still reading all these posts, they can decide which one of us has more credibility.

    It’s time for me to follow Anonymous’ advice and take my leave of this project. My questions haven’t all been answered to my satisfaction, but I can live with the level of uncertainty that remains. Otherwise, there will be no end to it. I’m posting my last, longest message here because that’s where most of my posts have been.

    I didn’t often see eye to eye with Daniel Luke. I was usually quite critical of his ideas and tactics. (Although to be honest I didn’t mind too much him pestering Kratz!) Despite our differences, Daniel never sent any of my posts to his mental health fund. I thank him for that. He showed that he can tolerate very strong criticism, as long as a certain level of civility is maintained.

    Since I now believe Steven Avery is guilty, you might be surprised that Dean Strang is a hero of mine. He tried to teach us that we have to live with uncertainty in this world. So many of us try to deny that uncertainty. That’s how many problems arise. I’ll take Strang’s acknowledgment of inevitable uncertainty in this world over the professed certitude of Avery’s new attorney. I hope that never came across as a know-it-all. I don’t have this case figured out at all.

    I’ve got advice for my fellow amateur sleuths. Let it go. There’s no end to it. The chances that you’ll find the key to the puzzle are minuscule (if there even is an undiscovered key). You have no budget. You have no subpoena power.

    But if you can’t let it go, if you need to know as much as is humanly possible about the case, then don’t turn to Nancy Grace or NBC Dateline. Go to the sources: trial transcripts, audio and written records of police interviews, pictures that were taken, etc. If you do that with an open mind, you’ll find a side to the story you never saw in Making a Murderer.

    The filmmakers have said repeatedly that they weren’t trying to show whether they Steven and Brendan were guilty or not. I believe it. Their apparent aim was to show how rotten the system treats suspects when they’re poor and uneducated. I wouldn’t disagree with that proposition in the least, and I think they did a masterful job demonstrating that.

    But I believe their film did something unfortunate, that was perhaps unintended, because their goal was not to retry the case. Strang and Buting provided a good, competent, ethical, vigorous defense. Their strategy was to sow seeds of doubt, pretty much every step of the way. Their main emphasis was on evidence-planting by the cops, for obvious reasons. Making a Murderer magnified that doubt by disproportionately favoring those arguments. The counterarguments were sparsely presented, if at all. The viewer didn’t realize this, as doubt filled in the resulting void.

    The viewer saw practically nothing but doubt!

    The trial was different. It had the balance that was absent from the film. Because trials are designed for both sides to go all out to win (within the rules of evidence, admissibility, ethical behavior, etc.). There’s no time limit. I concur with those who designed our system of justice that this format provides the best chance that something approaching justice will emerge.

    The trial transcripts give quite a different feel than the movie.

    It would take too much space and time to demonstrate this comprehensively, so I’ll provide one example: Mike Halbach. Mike was definitely one of the shady characters in Making a Murderer. Right? We all remember. Two things stick out in my mind about Mike.

    The first is that he started talking about grieving right after his sister’s vehicle was found. I’m sure you remember thinking, “why would Mike assume she was dead already? They just found her vehicle! Why did Mike correct himself and say hopefully she’s still alive? What does he know? What is he hiding?”

    That’s what we all thought. Remember? *That’s what we were meant to think.*

    I’ve learned since then that a cadaver dog was shown Teresa’s car about 3 hour after they found it. The dog barked at it and even pawed at the door. If my sister had been missing for 5 days, her vehicle had just been found in a junkyard, and a cadaver dog indicated decay and/or death inside the vehicle, I’d probably think she was dead, too. I’m kind of a realist that way. And if I accidentally betrayed my pessimistic belief to the press, I’d probably correct myself and say that hopefully she’s alive.

    Knowing about that cadaver dog gives Mike’s reaction a totally different feel, doesn’t it? You must feel at least a little bit manipulated. By the way, I learned about it from the trial testimony of the dog’s handler (day 5, starting on p.5).

    Mike also seemed sinister in the film because he broke into his sister’s voicemail. How did he know his sister’s password? How could he figure it out so fast? Remember your outrage at the dead girl’s brother? It seemed especially sinister since someone apparently deleted voicemail messages. That’s what we all thought.

    I’ve learned that in Cingular accounts of that period, voicemail messages were typically deleted automatically after 14 or 21 days, depending on the plan. (That sounds about right because my current phone plan deletes messages in 14 days unless they’re resaved.)

    So it’s perfectly plausible that the voicemail account was full in the days after Teresa’s disappearance, as worried friends were calling to find out where she was. But then people quit calling after they learned she was dead. At some point thereafter, messages would start to auto-delete and free up space. (It could have been the next day, depending on the date of the oldest message.) You see? There doesn’t need to be a sinister explanation at all!

    But how did Mike know the password? How could he guess it so quickly? It turns out that he previously did some web design for Teresa. It involved setting up a password (perhaps for the server). They used the month and day of her birthday. He tried that password on her voicemail account, and it worked (trial transcript day 18, p.177-79).

    Also, it turns out that 2005 was the heyday of the tabloid phone hacking scandal. So it was no great trick to guess someone’s phone password back then. It was certainly very reasonable that Mike was able to quickly guess his sister’s password.

    There you go: guessing her password demystified. And there’s a perfectly innocent explanation for messages being deleted. Moreover, Mike’s comments about grieving for his sister before her body was found now seem reasonable when put in perspective. Yet they seemed so shady in the movie.

    Guess what? There’s a lot more insight like this from the trial transcript. A lot more, because, by definition, you get balance. But this message is much too long already. If you want more examples of the misleading perspective of Making a Murderer, you’ll have to find them yourself.

    • I’m in the same camp. Please everyone, read all the transcripts and you will feel different.

    • Thanks for that. I totally agree with the need to read as much as possible — Trial transcripts, evidence files, interviews, etc. But not just that. Also to keep an eye out for timelines of when these occurred, the context of the people, what motive one would have to say what they did, and what feels logical to have occurred as a result of all of the above.

      Re Mike H – wasn’t his comment before they found the car? When they were still searching the area? Before any dogs were involved? I’m happy to be corrected and accept your interpretation of his grieving comment because it bothers me still, along with his and Ryan’s ‘eye dance’ when asked by the reporter if they had been on the Avery property. Why obfuscate?

      I believe the benefit of the documentary for the general public is to think sideways and realise that POLICE can LEGALLY lie to you. And that each state has different rules (not CSI or NY everywhere) that governs the ability of a defense attorney to present a case of reasonable doubt as to other potentially culpable suspects. Strang and Buting’s hands were tied by the very law that is meant to protect the accused from abuse of power. Out of all the lessons shown, those two stand out the most to me. Both together say: stay out of Wisconsin unless you’re middle class white, and best if you’re German, too.

      I’ve been off this case during the Syed PCH and other personal responsibilities, but I still think of new questions, new issues. I’ll dig back into the primary documents soon. I think I was only up to day 5 of the transcripts. Still may days to go. And have collected more case files as they’ve been put up.

      Thanks for asking hard questions. Very valued.

      • I know I claimed I was retiring a month ago, but I want to make one more update post here. First of all, I want to publicly acknowledge that I was totally wrong about one thing in my previous post (above). JLWhitaker was absolutely right that Mike Halbach made his comments about grieving before his sister’s RAV4 was found. It’s often a bad idea for me to rely on my memory, and this is one of those cases. I should have looked it up, and I got burned because I didn’t.

        Everything I said about the cadaver dog mitigating Mike Halbach’s reaction is null and void. That all came later. I apologize for the resulting confusion. I also (and especially) apologize to JLWhitaker for taking so long to eat this crow. There’s really no excuse for that.

        JLWhitaker is more or less diametrically opposed to me regarding Steven Avery’s case. We’ve butted a few times on reddit, but he’s never taken it personally. He never sinks to personal insult or the other mean and nasty tactics that are endemic in Internet forums. I praise him for this attitude and behavior.

        I decided to watch MaM again to see how I would perceive it after all my research. I definitely wasn’t under its spell the second time around. Even though I was wrong about Mike Halbach’s grieving comments, I still believe that MaM was heavily biased against law enforcement and in favor of Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey. I still believe that they are guilty. (I made a few posts in reddit after I finished my second viewing of MaM [same username = parminides]).

        However, I eventually realized that my strong reaction to being deceived and manipulated by MaM (IMO) probably caused me to be biased against Steven Avery, which is just as bad as any other bias! In effect, I took it out my frustrations with MaM on him.

        If the case against him was so weak, I thought, then why did MaM have to present such a lopsided account? I really shouldn’t punish Steven Avery for the defects I perceive in MaM. I continue to be aware of and fight against this tendency.

        Anyway, once again I apologize to JLWhitaker and anyone I confused. I hope to retire from the case again soon, but, as you know, it’s highly addictive.

  • I give up. I explicitly asked you to forget about any murder or the term “luring” and simply propose one possible reason for SA to use *67. And you steadfastly refuse. Instead, you threw out six mostly unrelated issues and questions, which, despite your refusal to answer my one simple question, I’ll address below.

    1. What if Teresa had answered the phone? Perhaps SA got someone else to use his phone to call her. The salvage yard was full of Dassey and Avery cousins and siblings. I’m not saying that’s what happened, but it would have allowed him to remain concealed. I previously addressed another possibility: that he called her near the appointment time, after she had already agreed to go (on the message left on the Janda answering machine), making it problematic and unprofessional to back out at that late time. Again, I’m just throwing out possibilities.

    2. What would she think as she drove down Avery Road as she’d done many times in the past? There are a whole slew of Averys and Dasseys living in the salvage yard. The name on the appointment was B. Janda. So she might have thought that the van belonged to one of SA’s relatives who lived in the salvage yard. In fact, this was the case.

    3. Why was there was physical evidence in Steven Avery’s bedroom or in the garage? I’m guessing that your implied point is that if she were so afraid of SA, she wouldn’t have gone into his house. Well, suppose that she was not afraid of SA at all, but that he had erroneously imagined that she was (because of the bath towel or some other incident). Suppose that he didn’t know that she had laughed off that incident. So that he mistakenly believed that she would have been reluctant to go inside. SA mistakenly thinking she was afraid of him is an interesting possibility.

    4. Why are the bones found in so many locations? My, how we have strayed far from my original *67 question! (Wouldn’t it have been easier just to answer my question?) Teresa’s bones perhaps were found in only two locations: SA’s burn area and one of the Janda’s burn barrels. The other location (the quarry) is inconclusive according to the forensic experts. Only a single pelvic bone was found at the quarry, and it was so degraded that they couldn’t tell whether it was animal or human. It’s worth noting that Teresa’s longer bones were found in the Janda barrel, and the smaller ones were left in the pit. It’s possible that SA moved the larger bones to the Janda barrel to divert attention from himself (and/or potentialy frame Brendan or someone else). But this has absolutely nothing to do with the *67 issue.

    5. Why aren’t SA’s fingerprints in the RAV4? Maybe he wiped them off. Maybe he made prints but they were smudged. I think eight prints were found on the RAV4, but none were suitable for identification purposes. It’s my understanding that most prints are not high enough quality to be used for identification.

    6. How about Brendan Dassey? (You claim that SA cannot not be guilty unless Brendan is also guilty.) Daniel, you demonstrate an almost complete lack of basic understanding of the case if you think that SA could not have killed Teresa Halbach without Brendan also being guilty. There’s not a shred of evidence that Brendan was involved except his own mouth. Surely you realize that anything he said is suspect. So can you kindly explain how “without [Brendan’s] guilt, you don’t have SA guilt”?

    I trust that you know that SA’s lawyer, Dean Strang, has expressed doubts about SA’s innocence. I hope you at least know that much. Yet you, who have spent a relatively tiny amount of time on the case, state things so dogmatically and authoritatively. What do you know that Strang is missing?

    Anyway, I’ve given hypothetical answers to all your questions. They’re necessarily hypothetical because I don’t pretend to know what happened. Would you please provide a single, innocent, hypothetical explanation for SA calling Teresa using the *67 feature?

    • *67 is only used to hide who you are.
      You are bothering someone and do not wish for them to know it is you. Shady.
      Or you are Eddie Murphy and need a lot of privacy until he trust you. You get the picture.

  • To Parminides:
    Listen closely to this call between Remiker and Weigert. Listen to when TH called the Zipperers.

    • I heard that a couple of days ago. It’s fascinating. It’s the most surprising thing I’ve heard in a long time. I want to study it some more. I have no idea why the cops would assume that she went to the Zipperers after Avery. I don’t think that possibility is mentioned in the testimony of the two Auto Trader employees. The Avery appointment was same day (i.e., and scheduled on 10/31/2005). It would seem natural that it would be last. To assume that he went to the Zipperers after Avery also contradicts the idea that the cops had tunnel vision and focused only on SA. On the other hand, it’s always bothered me that so little is known about George Zipperer except that he was behaving in a bizarre fashion. George Zipperer is high on my list of alternate suspects.

      • Part of the reason is that Joellen Z said TH came at or after 3pm. TH also called the Zipperers because she wasn’t sure where they were located. She drove from New Holstein, Avery is calling — where are you? She runs out of time, does the SA photos, then goes to the Zipperers.

        As Jim Clemente said, though, there is one sure bit of info that may be missing — the tower ping data. It’s unfortunate that between Avery’s and Zipperer’s, they are close enough to have the same tower. Still there would be evidence of when the phone really died (was no longer findable by the network), other than the unconnected calls via the Chicago switch.

        Keep in mind that SA’s record says the 4.37 call was “answered”, but TH records said it did NOT connect – the 00000 indicator. That one has me stumped. They do NOT match. The 13 seconds could be just the time of trial to make the connection or went to voice mail, like the remainder of the calls on the one page of phone records that is commonly shown. 13 seconds is way too short for much of anything to happen at all.

    • I don’t see anything strange about Teresa’s 2:12pm call to the Zipperers. Supposedly, she called to say that she was lost and running late. What do you find so remarkable about this call? What’s remarkable to me is that the cops originally believed that she went to Zipperers after Avery. Of course that would mean that Steven Avery is innocent. It also contradicts the idea that they didn’t consider anything but that Avery killed her. (But one could still argue that they framed Avery for something they knew he didn’t do, which is, more or less what happened to him with the earlier rape.) Anyway, if you’ll tell me what you find so interesting/odd/remarkable about that call, I’ll be glad to comment about it.

    • The phone records, as I understand them, are consistent with Teresa Halbach visiting the Avery property first, then going to the Zipperers. They are also consistent with her visiting the Zipperer house first. So they’re inconclusive. Visiting the Zipperers last means a conspiracy of truly epic proportions occurred, involving his own family members (some of whom provided very damning testimony about fires at SA’s place that night, for example). Visiting Steven Avery last doesn’t require such a grand project. Which one is more likely?

      • You say it yourself in the first sentence: the phone records are consistent with Avery first, as in, before Zipperers. She also tells Autotrader she’s almost there — to Avery’s, wasn’t it? Or did she mean the Zipperers?

        It comes down to when she was where and matching the various witness timelines. Remember, Bobby Dassey has her at Averys at 2.30ish. JoellenZ testifies that TH was at their house, she spoke with her, at around 3.

        If TH was calling the Zipperer’s for directions to their place at 2.12, when was she supposed to have had time to stop at their place after finding it, and take photos and then make it to the Avery’s — in time for being seen at 2.30 by Bobby taking pictures outside his window?

        I’m just saying it would be worth re-enacting these stops w/ her actions included to see if it’s even possible. It’s sorta like OJ’s glove – if the actions don’t fit, well….

        Oh, and they also found an intact camera SD card in the back of the RAV. I’ve not seen anything about the content of that, have you?

  • Another chip blown away of the theory police planted blood.
    Practically speaking, this is potentially damning to Avery’s defense.

    It means that if police did plant Avery’s EDTA-preserved blood in Halbach’s Toyota RAV4, they would have had to dilute it first to avoid detection by a mass-spec machine.

    How much dilution? A lot. Roughly a few drops of preserved blood in a volume of liquid the size of a New York City subway car.

    Such highly diluted blood would look more like water than a bloodstain. It probably would not have even been visible in Teresa Halbach’s car.

    • OK, but this guy is making assertions and hasn’t read all the documents.

      Wasn’t the EDTA concentration in the tube itself WAAAAY below what would be expected to be there? So there must be some degradation over time, or else the original sample wasn’t properly preserved at time of putting in the vial. That low level in the tube itself, after 20 years, may not fit the standard measures used in this analyst’s original test design.

      On the other hand, the time of the exposure of the blood on the RAV wasn’t very long, just a few days. We don’t know, however, when the swabs were taken. 2 years later for the trial? Do we know that?

      He also only tested half the blood swabs. Why?

      It’s still questionable from a scientific testing perspective. It doesn’t add up (yet), as the defense witness said on rebuttal.

  • This isn’t anything KK has to explain, but rather SA. He is the one that did it.

    *67 is used to hide the itentity to a recipient of a phone call.

    SA is the one who took the rest of that day off to be available when TH came.

    SA never did that ever before when having pictures taken of a vehicle, ever.

    SA is the one who lied about not having a bonfire.

    SA has a lot of explaining to do. He is the one charged.

    What did his defense team do to explain these things?

    • What does ‘bonfire’ mean to you? It could mean something entirely different to SA. What did they really ask him? What did he really say? Words mean different things to different people. Inflection is important. When and how they are asked is important. Context of the entire interview is important, including what was asked prior to that question. That’s why it’s important to have audio/visual recordings of interviews, not just transcripts.

      • They asked him when the last time he burned something in the pit and his barrel. SA knew what tgey were asking. He stated a week before Oct. 31. Then they ask him what he did all day. Do you want the document to read or the tape recording? They are both readily available on the internet.

        • Please point me to the one you’re referring to. Thanks

        • “Steven advised he has not bunt anything in his burn barrel for quite a while, probably longer than a week. He did not burn anything that night.”

          “His burn barrel is out in front of his house.”

          “Steven said the week before last or over a week ago before Teresa was there, he burned brush, some tires and some garbage in an area behind house right by his dog. He said the tires did not have rims.”

        • I came across a blog last night that in my opinion virtual slam-dunk evidence of Steven Avery’s guilt ( Ironically, the blog thinks he’s innocent.

          It correctly points out that none of the original interviewees mentioned a fire. Steven Avery said he hadn’t burned anything in a couple of weeks. Then, after bones, a phone, a camera, etc., were discovered, people started admitting to seeing fires that day.

          The blog’s thesis is that the police coerced all these witnesses to agree that a fire was present, even though none was. To coerce Brendan Dassey is one thing. To coerce multiple blood relatives, some of whom are pretty rough characters, to go along is quite a stretch in my view. I think it much more likely that they were lying at first to protect the family, but the lie became untenable after the the evidence poured in.

          The blog reminded me of a jailhouse phone call in Making a Murderer between Steven Avery and his sister, Barb. (It doesn’t say which episode.) In the phone call, Steven discusses the events of October 31. He says (according to the blog), “That night he (Brendan) came over, we had the bonfire and he was home by 9:00 because Jodie called me at 9:00 and I was in the house already.”

          In none of his police interviews (Nov 5, 6, and 9) did Steven Avery bring up or admit to having a fire that night. He said he was in his trailer watching tv.

          So he was lying about the presence of a bonfire at his trailer from the very beginning! Why would he lie unless he knew what was in that fire? This all but cinches Steven Avery’s involvement in Teresa Halbach’s murder in my mind.

          But not the blogger’s mind. She hypothesizes that Steven Avery only *thought* there was a fire that night because everyone else was saying it. In other words, he was going along with the crowd, a victim of this mass delusion himself. I don’t think so. I find it exceedingly unlikely that the cops could plant a false memory of a bonfire in Steven Avery’s head. It borders on science fiction.

          Anyway, I think I’m almost ready to take Anonymous’ advice and retire from this project. I’m quite confident that Steven Avery is guilty, even if I can’t answer *every* question to my satisfaction.

        • I am trying to reply about Daniel’s assertion that he didn’t lie.

          I posted this once, I’m posting it again.

          (Burn Barrel)

          “He did not burn anything that night.” (October 31)

          “Steven said the week before last or over a week ago BEFORE Teresa was there, he burned brush, some tires and some garbage in an area behind house right by his dog.”

          Also, if you listen to the audio, he hesitates 3-5 seconds after every question. That is NOT responding quickly.

        • Guess who had access to the property while the Avery’s were away from November 4 — Bobby and Scott Tadych.

        • Anybody had access to the property from what I understand. There were back-road entrances from several points.

          How do you explain why Steven Avery lied to the cops multiple times about an October 31 bonfire? He told the cops there was no fire that night. In one of the early interviews, he said he hadn’t burned anything for two weeks (i.e., about a week before October 31). But he told Brendan’s mother on the phone that there was a bonfire that night and Brendan was there!

          This is a big problem for those of us who find it preposterous to suggest that the cops could induce a false memory of a bonfire in Steven Avery. If they were that powerful, why didn’t they just induce a memory of killing Teresa Halbach?

          This is probably the last nail in the coffin for me. Trust me. There are a lot of nails. This is probably the last one for me.

        • He didn’t lie. You didn’t listen carefully enough.

        • I highly doubt that the crime scene was kept very secure after members of law enforcement left in the evening. They certainly didn’t plant any evidence in either the garage or Steven Avery’s bedroom. Therefore, if you believe in the Scott Tadych/Bobby Dassey theory, I would imagine that you must totally reject the prosecution’s theory entirely?

        • I don’t know what you’re talking about, Daniel. You keep changing the subject. I’m talking about Steven Avery initially telling police that he had no fires at his place on October 31. He did this in at least 2 different interviews. Later, the told Barb from jail that he had a bonfire on October 31 and Brendan Dassey was there until 9pm. This is a huge deal in my view, much bigger than *67. Why are you mentioning planting evidence? That has nothing to do with Steven Avery lying about the fire. Why don’t you address this glaring inconsistency in Steven Avery’s own accounts of that night?

        • He didn’t lie about the fire. He was asked on the 9th of November about the last time he had had a fire in the burn barrel. He said not for a week, and that was true since there is more than a week between October 31st and November 9th. If you listen to all of his interviews, he always gives information quickly, and it’s obvious that he’s comfortable and telling the truth. He gives very detailed explanations, and they all pan out. Occasionally, when we KNOW he is telling the truth, he is uncertain of things that might have happened a week or more ago just as anyone would be uncertain about what they did. You also have to consider the fact that he even was willing to talk to police. Guilty people don’t do that, and if they do, they certainly don’t in that manner. By the way, do you live in Wisconsin, or did you? Anywhere close to that area? Only people from that area seem to be nearly impossible to be convinced of Steven Avery’s innocence. Elsewhere it’s pretty obvious.

    • Avery did it.
      This blog is repetitive.
      When I was here weeks ago you all thought he was innocent.
      Now that you read the actual transcripts everyone has changed their tune. Rightfully so. Do not let Hollywood one sided movies influence you ever again. Close this blog. It is not healthy you three going in circles. Best.

      • I thought he was innocent right after I saw the documentary. Then I dove into the transcripts. Now I think he’s guilty. So I agree with your sentiments that we were manipulated by a fancy movie. But I’m still not certain about his guilt. There are plenty of loose ends. For instance, why would he have left her phone, camera, and palm pilot in his burn barrel when he had almost a week to get rid of that debris? Almost a week to get rid of the other evidence outside his trailer. Almost a week to do something else with the vehicle. Why did he leave the bones behind his garage when multiple family members claimed they saw a fire there that night? With such glaring things still unexplained, I remain interested in further study. But your point is well-taken (at least by me).

        • Maybe he left phone, palm pilot, etc., because he does not often if ever murdur people and is really dumb as in he forogt a few things but cleaned up so well and felt ok about. Murdur is never like the movies. People are nervous and forgetful. Sometimes you have to accept you won’t know answers to a lot in life. We are tiny specs here for a fleeting moment.

  • Re the *67 — the defense explained it as a normal thing he did. But without seeing some documentation for that statement, it’s hard to be sure. Having more phone records for many people prior to that day would be so helpful.

    • A normal thing he did, only 2 out of 3 times that day.

      • That day. But what about other days before then? Did he also use it 2/3 of the time in general? Did he only use it with certain people? Was it hit and miss? Patterns of behavior are important, not just single instances, or single days, or single people.

        If you drove by a place where a crime took place, and the neighbor looked up to see you speed away, and called you in to police…. Hmmmm…you’re a person of interest aren’t you by your logic?

        • A lot of what SA did that day was not normal for him. Taken individually, I get your point. But the deck is starting to stack for me as being too many things.

        • I’ve almost gotten to the point of “case closed.” These things add up and accumulate and at some point they can’t be dismissed.

        • Would this go for Brendan Dassey too? And are you saying that you believe the murder happened more or less as Ken Kratz described?

        • No. Not Brendan. I don’t trust anything that poor kid said, and that’s the only evidence against him (his own mouth). However, I do suspect that he was involved in some way.

          Kratz has multiple scenarios for the murder that aren’t consistent with each other. He was actually pretty vague about many details in his closing statement in the Steven Avery trial. I don’t have a particular scenario. Maybe he flirted with her, she rebuffed him, and he lost control. I have no idea.

          I just look at the things he said to the police that don’t seem true. Too many things point to him. Too many to point out here.

          I think what shifted my opinion was Kayla Avery. She went to her school counselor in December upset about Steven Avery asking a cousin to hide a body. That may have been a joke to one of Bobby Dassey’s friends.

          But Kayla asked the counselor if blood could rise up out of concrete. As far as I know, she had never been interviewed by the cops. Why should she have been? She was Earl Avery’s daughter, and he didn’t live in the salvage yard.

          So the police could not coerced this idea. It’s pristine in that regard. She hadn’t talked to them yet. I’m pretty sure the cops were not even paying attention to the garage at that time. I believe they refocused on the garage after Brendan’s interviews, which came later (and were prompted by Kayla’s comments).

          That’s pretty hard to explain away, don’t you think? Kayla Avery asked her school counselor in December whether blood could rise out of concrete. Do you remember all those cracks in the garage?

        • You are rapidly losing what sliver of credibility you have. There was no blood found anywhere in the garage. Teresa was not buried under concrete. Her testimony was given in December, well after she might have heard all kinds of things from all kinds of people. If that is what you find most convincing, we may as well cease having a conversation from this point. No offense.

        • Let us end all speculation about what would SA say if TA answered when he used *67.

          I just looked at SA’s phone record.

          He placed a call to TA at 2:25 using *67

          TH answers!

          SA hangs up!

          Let us not forget also,

          SA calls Autotrader 8:12 to book the appointment NOT using *67

          His next 2 calls to TH he DOES use *67

          The 4:35 SA does NOT use *67

          So the statement of SA using *67 being normal, is not the norm at all.

  • All of this is well and good, but the trial is over. Do we not want to come to an understanding of what happened to TH and who did it? All we have is the evidence in the case. Alternate suspects are not going to give their “alibis” unless pressured to in court.

    I for one am digging deep to see where the evidence takes me. I don’t want to hear theories, but where the facts line up.

    • I think the ones with legitimate alibis would be more than happy to offer them up without needing to be compelled to do so in court. I know that’s what I would do. I would imagine that the person most unwilling to give their alibi would be the killer(s), so it’s really a simple process of elimination. From there, you would simply start asking the people who know the holdouts. Eventually someone will talk.

  • Well said!

  • Also, just to clarify, the lady that worked with Teresa at Autotrader said that the last time she talked to Teresa was October 31st when Teresa had called because she had a voicemail from another lady that works at AutoTrader that had information about three jobs that day. which only can mean that on October 31st teresa voice mailbox was empty enough for someone to leave a message from Auto Trader. the very next day and in fact the next three days Tuesday Wednesday and Thursday her colleague had called her and has gotten a voice mailbox full message. so it was empty enough to leave a message on the 31st, yet it was too full to leave a message the following Tuesday Wednesday and Thursday. that Thursday is the day Teresa was reported missing.

    • Yeah, and why are we only seeing her phone record for one day? The public needs to be able to see the phone record for days leading up to and following the 31st. Where are these records???

      • Furthermore, the very first witness call to the stand on the very first day of the trial was none other than Mike. During his testimony he clearly says, I think 3 times, that he knows teresas voicemail password he does not need to guess he does not need to look it up he knew it already and her also what her computer password is. so there was no guessing involved. he knew the voicemail password and the computer password.when he was asked when he accessed the voicemail he says it was Thursday probably in the early evening. Thursday was November 4th, and remember The 1st thru the 3rd her Colleague Confirms her voice mailbox is full. on the phone records that we are allowed to see, and yes I do think there’s more to that list, you can see someone calling her over and over and over again all throughout the morning. different number than any of the other ones that are on there. yet we never find out who this menacing caller was.

        • Actually, those at the bottom are outgoing calls from her. If you watch the Investigation Discovery show (it’s on the net), you’ll be able to see the full record without the redactions which ‘delete’/cover-up the outgoing call numbers. I saved a copy of the image, along w/ several others from that show with different perspectives of the salvage yard. I may post them on my blog because you can see the distances that are hard to get your head around from just ‘words’.

  • Maybe she wanted proof it would be him, the one she feared and not really the sister? Maybe she wanted it recorded she was going there. Some ladies are very scared to go to a salvage yard which smells of death and people knew his prison record. Innocent of the rape but other things that can creep out a person. Killing a cat is what scum do when closer to 10 or 12. Was he 20 when he did it?

    • Um I’m I’m gonna call bullshit on that based on being a woman..

      Yes I’m trained, very well trained, and my instincts are on point but even still they are not with out fault, I will admit that. At 25 (18 actually) I thought I was invincible. But again I was a Marine trained in military police tactics. No I was not a military policewoman by MOS but I did have the training.

      As for the cat. I don’t give that much weight. I abhor animal cruelty but a single youthful act of cruelty against a cat Ina rural area is not an unaheard of thing. Sucks, I don’t like it but I know many very successful, very good people that have told disgusting cat abuse tails in their youth.

      • You are close to being a Man, Tracy or anon6, whomever you are this week. You cannot call bs on things because most feminine ladies are different from you. More power to your type. But you know you are the minority.

        • I’m me. Daniel can trace my IP address anytime he likes and I fess up to my posts. They do go back to a legitimate person.

          Close to being a man? Are you fucking kidding me???? Lololo I have a fully functioning vagina that birthed a couple of boys. Well I’m getting older and all but it still works, might need a little assist in the lube department but otherwise…..

          Really, what did I say that you can’t handle, that makes you question my vagina??????

    • Her voice is warm and friendly, I certainly don’t hear any fear in her voice.

  • “I don’t have
    your address or anything so I can’t stop by without getting a call back
    from you.” This audio taped message from TH to Avery on NBC’s Dateline Jan. 29th. Please explain to me why she left this message? (she also left another one before this saying she was Teresa from Auto Trader and would be out sometime in the afternoon) Is there concrete evidence that she was there before (14 times)?
    Why does she need him to call her?

    • I think this ties into that the vehicle being sold was actually Steven’s sister’s van, and it was her number that was given to Auto Trader, so maybe there was confusion for Teresa on the location

      • Thank-you, that is a reasonable explanation. Kratz trying to imply she was lured there and pointing out Averys’ calls to her, just didn’t make sense, she called him twice that day (I’ve heard both messages)

  • I have to add this…..

    At one point in time I worked for the post office. I was delivering a package that required a signature. The signatureeee was not expecting me and answered the door Ina towel, obviously just out of the shower or hot tub. The towel fell off. He signed for the package as I’m laughing my ass off…….it was December, it was cold. Yes I told my colleagues of the incident and yes I used the terms “Ewe” and a few other terms with the ladies I worked with. It is what. It is. I still did my job and deliverered there afterwards.

    I wasn’t creeped out enough to not go back again. It was a hapistance issue to me although he blush to hell and back the next time he saw me. Me, I laughed to myself the next time I saw him. After that I didn’t really think about it again, shit happens. I never looked at it as a”planned” incident. It was a timing thing, neither one of us knew the other was coming.

    Ah life and the things that happen.

  • After reading your first sentence…….I think there is enough out there to know that sweat Kratz is a rapist that used his knowledge of the system and wealth to get hi a lower sentence.

    I’ve said this to my friends and family…you are better off to have money and influence and me guilty than be poor and innocent. Our justice system sucks.

    I am dealing with this now. I’m not poor per say but I’m not well off. But I’m dealing with a corrupt federal employer trying to blame me for what they did. I’m fighting it. It is pissing them off and they are doing everything they can to discredit me but I still fight.

    So yes Daniel, I do understand your fight. I’m years into the fight and am even fighting my attorney for what is right. Funny huh? I’m not willing to take the easy route, I’m willing to fight for what is right. So I do understand what what you are trying to do……but there is a way to do it!!!

    • well let’s hear your story then? The more media exposure something gets, the more the powers that be are pressured to do the right thing.

      • No because actually the meds id won’t take on the “little mans story” unless they think they can sell it aims when it come to the little man against Uncle Sam, it doesn’t happen that often. On the upside, I have all the emails to all that I’ve emailed asking for exposure. Slowing the issue coming out but it is so convoluted…..

        It will come out but is will take a long time and I realize that. In the mean time me, my attorney, multiple hard drives ands safe deposit boxes have the video, photographic and audio proof and my former employee knows it.

        It’s all fun and games. The animal rights activists would love to have what I have but I don’t support them. My employers hate what I have because it proves that I did my job. The inspected well….well I can prove violations but at the same time don’t support animal rights wackos so I’m stuck between government being overzealous and people’s rights when it comes to what is in my possession.

        I won’t even begin to explain it here but let’s just say……I have a lot of fuel for a lot of fires.

        • But I will add in that as this is going on, the federal agency has used my known military disability to force me to medically retire. Known as in when they hired me they knew my limitations.

          Of course this is all being forced by a supervisor that I reported for violating civil rights of the Amish in Ohio. Not mine, but of those that I was regulating under his leadership and direction.

          Ummmm yeah. It gets a lot more sticky but that is the gist of it and the reported violations go all the way up to the (now retired) deputy admistrator of the agency who was replaced with a totally shit hot attorney (go figure).

        • Actually Daniel you have an obvious interest for strong women (let’s not argue this). As it applies to the Amish, they would embrace you pretty quick especially with your history. Almost peas In a pod so to speak………..

          You are nearly the perfect type of person to “infiltrate” in this particular situation.

  • But they weren’t. The only thing that was looked at was the three calls from Avery. The alleged harassing calls over the weeks leading up to her disappearance were never looked into. The calls between her and other possible suspects was never looked into.

    The investigation into her missing/death was botched on so many levels it is mind boggling!

  • It is all circular.
    When creeps call you from a private number they almost always hang up on you. It is a power trip that they got you to pick up. ….the person you were avoiding is now somebody heard. Relevant.
    I have never seen a murder go down where it looked like so many different people did it. What a hard on the real murdurer has now. Relevant.

  • Devil’s advocate: Steve A was the ‘stalker’ she was avoiding, he kept getting ‘no answers’, so he did *67 to hope she did pick up.

    Obviously there are ways to check that hypothesis. Check TH phone records for constant callers and her hitting no answer to divert. Alas, the stalker hypothesis wasn’t checked either as far as we know.

    Kratz doesn’t let actual evidence get in his way much though. He’s happy with the planted kind, coerced illogical confessions, and hearsay. He’s that kinda guy.

    • I’m quite sure that they looked at all of Steven Avery’s phone records going back years or even months. What we’re seeing, I’m quite sure, is just a microscopic amount of all of the phone records that existed for Steven Avery. But the entire record, and especially the in the few months leading up to THs death were gone over with a flea comb. I think we can safely conclude that. And I also think that we can safely conclude that if Steven Avery was calling her at odd times, and repeatedly, or doing anything out of the ordinary that would have been brought out by Ken Kratz.

    • “I don’t have
      your address or anything so I can’t stop by without getting a call back
      from you.” TH audio taped phone message to Avery (Aired Jan 29th NBC’s Dateline) Explain that message to me, if you can

      • Easy enough. Check again, that message was from Teresa to the zipperers not to SA. Easy mistake to make seeing as how not many people even know that the zipperers was the last place TH was seen alive..

        Daniel, I know you’re busy and all but don’t have the most interesting/best blog online and then leave us hanging like that! Haha I even checked to make sure you didn’t get arrested for something lmao.

        I just finished reading the first five days of trial transcripts, and it’s funny that her colleague recalls several keys on the same key ring that was found in SA room. Never again to be mentioned so far. The picture I show everyone where you can see she has multiple keys clutched in her hands was taken late 2005 and may even be the most recent picture of her, according to her brother Mike. The keys are the key.

        • I chuckled because when Daniel doesn’t check in in a reasonable amount of time I do çheck the manitowoc inmate listing. Lololol.

        • I believe that Ken Kratz is behind all of this confusion because we only have partial information, and that’s for a reason. My view is that the call Kratz was really concerned about was the one from SA to TH at 4:35pm. According to the prosecution’s theory, SA had killed TH by then. No conceivable reason to call someone you know is deceased, right? You really have to understand how pathological Ken Kratz is to understand what is going on here. He knows this is potentially a huge weakness in his theory, so he pushes as much bullshit in front of it to hoping that people will become confused and distracted, and he basically succeeds. I would ask us all to consider whether, in trying to understand who called who and when whether we’re falling into Ken Kratz’s manipulation. It is the prosecution, after all, which has the burden of proof. It is he, and he alone who has created doubt where there shouldn’t be any. It is he and he alone (I think) who has carefully excluded the full record of TH an SA phone logs. The idea that SA was trying to lure TH on to the property is plainly nonsensical, as I’ve discussed at length already. I’ve realized that Kratz is a pathological liar and someone who cares only about himself, and is willing to do anything to manipulate other people. He’s extremely skillful at this. My conclusion is that his whole theory about trying to lure TH to the property is something he made up entirely out of whole cloth. The more we understand Kratz’s character, the closer we get to understanding his whole case. For most people this is difficult not because they lack the proper set of analytical tools to come to the right conclusion, but because few people can get into Kratz’s head. Even as a disgraced prosecutor, this man still wears the mantle of authority with all of the credibility that goes along with that. In reality, however, he is a dangerous fraud.

        • Kratz is a self proclamied narcissist.

          He puts so much weight into that towel incident because of the way he himself thinks. I am sure this would be something Kratz would do on purpose. (He is “the prize”)

          Teresa had been late to her appointments on the day she died. She may have been late or even come early on the day he was in a towel. We all take showers (well most of us do), if you try to take a shower before someone arrives, and they are early., not your fault. If you waited to take a shower until after they have come and gone, and they don’t show up on time, and you planned to leave for work or somewhere right after the photo’s, you may not be able to wait, so jump in real quick. Not knowing why he was in a towel and assigning a reason seems more like what is going through Kratz’s mind more than what is going through Stevens.

        • Can’t reply to Sam directly, so I’ll put here.

          He had a pool. Several times Teresa took photos that year was in the summer. I find it a bit more modest (if he were in trunks) that he put on a towel, don’t you?

          BTW, there is a photo in the Investigation Discovery program of the pool. I may have to start a photo collection on my blog for all these things.

        • JL, I agree. The towel thing can totally go back to the pool. There is no context to it. I expressed that from the first time I saw photos of the pool.

          Gawd I’ve said so many times. It is better to be rich and guilty than To be poor and innocent.

          Still, not 100% sure Steven is innocent but 100% sure he and branden did NOT get a fair trial.

        • JLWhitaker,

          I had not thought about the pool. I have seen the photo’s of it. It is a good point. Even if you’re not modest, you don’t want to drip water all over the place. So either way. Context has been lost in so much of this case. Thanks for pointing that out.

        • NBC’s Dateline said the call was to Avery ,not the Zippers’ even had voice over saying “even though she’s been there before, she doesn’t seem to know where she is going”

        • Zipper just destroyed his perfectly good garage while Zellner was in town doing forensics at Averys. Kid you not!

        • There was one to the zippers needing directions and also a call I believe to Stevens sister’s, also needing an address, not realizing it was Stevens property. It is not a maybe, she had been on his property for other shoots. This is not being debated. Auto Trader has the records.

        • The call was to Barb Janda’s answering machine. Teresa didn’t realize that it was the salvage lot because Steven Avery booked it in his sister’s name. The receptionist at Auto Trader actually created a new account for the appointment. Couple that with the fact that Steven Avery called Teresa twice blocking his number, and Kratz’ “luring” theory is not unreasonable. That doesn’t mean it’s true.

        • His luring theory is very unreasonable. None of it makes any sense. Teresa had been out to the property fifteen times previously. She had to have known by the address that she was headed that way, since the address had to have been Avery road. And please explain how blocking your number means that you are luring someone somewhere? What if Teresa had answered the call? Wouldn’t she have known it was Steven Avery at that point? If you want to lure someone somewhere, the last thing you do is call them using *67 to block your their caller ID.

        • This is in reply to Daniel’s post of February 6, 2016, 5:45 pm. You wrote, “Teresa had been out to the property fifteen times previously.” You should use sources other than People magazine. Teresa is known to have been to the property *five* times, starting in June 20, 2005. (See Day 2 trial testimony of Angela Schuster, p.22-30.)

          You also wrote, “She had to have known by the address that she was headed that way, since the address had to have been Avery road.” Somehow, it appears that Teresa did not get the address initially. How else do you explain her leaving the following message on Barb Janda’s answering machine?

          “Hello. This is Teresa with Auto Trader Magazine. I’m the photographer, and just giving you a call to let you know that I could come out there today, um, in the afternoon. It would — will probably be around two o’clock or even longer, but, um, if you could please give me a call back and let me know if that will work for you, because I don’t have your address or anything, so I can’t stop by without getting a call back from you.” (Day 8 transcripts, p.159-60.)

          I suppose it’s possible that she’s little white lying about not having the address because she wants to make sure she gets a call back to confirm appointment. But we must consider that her words mean precisely what she says they mean.

          As I wrote in a previous post, the receptionist at Auto Trader didn’t connect the address and created a separate account for B. Janda.

          Why did Steven give Auto Trader his sister’s home number when he knew she would be at work during the day? When you combine all this with the *67 calls, it’s not *unreasonable* for someone to conclude that Steven may not have wanted her to know that he was involved with this appointment. That’s not an *unreasonable* conclusion. It doesn’t mean that’s the truth of the matter.

          By the way, I didn’t claim that blocking your number *means* you’re luring someone. But it is consistent with luring someone. Of course, if Teresa had answered the call, she would have known. That’s a problem with the luring theory.

          I actually believe there’s a good chance that she answered Steven’s 2:24pm call. Because 3 minutes later she calls Auto Trader and tells the receptionist that the appointment is with the Avery brothers and she is on her way.

          The fact that she didn’t seemed to be dismayed to learn about Steven Avery’s involvement seems to counter any luring theory. But one could imagine that he wanted to wait as long as possible before letting her know, so she wouldn’t have much time to think about it and back out. Also, she had already committed herself to showing up by then (in the answering machine message to Barb).

          Consider *all* the possibilities with sober analysis and reflection, my friend! I’m just curious. Have you read any of the transcripts for either Steven Avery’s or Brendan Dassey’s trial?

        • Daniel, I’m also curious about why you think Steven Avery used the *67 feature on two calls to Teresa Halbach that day?

        • Clearly people who use *67 are intent on deception and murder.

        • It was a serious question and it deserves a serious answer. What is your explanation? I’m very interested in hearing from the person who posted many Avery phone numbers in the infamous Christmas Day police report. Why do you think Steven wanted to hide his phone number from Teresa? If you say that it doesn’t mean he was luring her, what do you think it means? It’s a very serious question. Do you have a serious answer? Feel free to speculate. (You ignored my question about whether you’ve read any transcripts.)

        • I have no idea why he used *67. The only reason that it seems to need an explanation is because of the suspicions and doubt Ken Kratz has skillfully sowed. You have to get into Ken Kratz’s head, I think to fully understand this case. This man is a serial, pathological liar who started with someone opening a door with a towel. By the way, have you noticed that the press has backed away from him finally? Where did Nancy Grace go? I think they eventually figured out that they were being fooled by a master manipulator. I hop you eventually figure it out too, whoever you are.

        • I’m not being fooled by a master manipulator or getting my facts from People magazine. I’m reading and listening to the primary sources (police interviews, transcripts, etc.). That’s what you should be doing, too. Teresa claims on the message on Barb Janda’s answering machine from 11:43am that she doesn’t know the address. If you believe that Steven Avery was not trying to hide the fact that he’d be involved in that appointment, then the *67 does require an explanation. The fact that you cannot offer a single possible alternative reason despite me asking you multiple times is pretty telling. You don’t get to ignore inconvenient facts. You have to deal with those, too.

        • I told you I don’t know. I could come up with lots of possible scenarios though that don’t involve murder.

        • Let’s hear one possible scenario. You’ve never shown the slightest reluctance to publicly speculate on this case before.

        • And by the way, I didn’t say anything about murder. Let’s just remove murder and the term “luring” altogether. The known evidence has led some to propose that Steven Avery did not want Teresa Halbach to know that he was connected to the October 31 appointment. Such as him making two *67 calls to her that day that blocked his number. (See some of my posts above for more of the evidence that is consistent with this idea.) Daniel is suddenly timid about speculating about the case. Can anyone offer a possible reason why he would block his number? It should also explain why he didn’t block his last call to her on 4:35pm.

        • Timid? That’s funny. If he didn’t want Teresa Halbach to know that he was connected to the October 31st appointment, he wouldn’t have called her at all. As I’ve already mentioned several times, what if Teresa had answered the phone on either of those two occasions? What was Teresa supposed to think as she was driving down Avery Rd as she’d done numerous times before (be it five or fifteen times)? So now, let’s switch back to why there was physical evidence in SA bedroom. Or in the garage (except for the bullet found week and weeks later)? Why were bones found in so many locations? Why were there no fingerprints of SA in the RAV4? I know you want to keep hammering away at *67, but how do you explain all this? And what about Brendan Dassey? You have to believe he’s guilty too, because without his guilt, you don’t have SA guilt.