• I recently saw an old Fox11 media broadcast re Brendan's post conviction hearing (Search YouTube: "Fox 11 Brendan Dassey hearing continues"). In the video, reporters discuss "pieces of an interview with Brendan Dassey that never made it into trial," referring to the May 12, 2006 recorded interview between Brendan and Kachinsky's defense investigator Michael O'Kelly.

 

• Reporters note O'Kelly testified "initially his job was to gather information to defend Brendan Dassey, but during the course of his work that changed. He said Dassey's attorney told him later on to gather information that would help Dassey enter into a plea deal, where Dassey might get a lighter sentence in exchange for testifying against Steven Avery." Although the broadcast doesn't mention this, O'Kelly testified the "idea" to have Brendan "turn" on Steven didn't originate from himself or Kachinsky, but from Brendan's family.

 

• The extended moment from the broadcast can be found during Day 4 of Brendan's Post Conviction Hearing. Per PCH:1/21:33-47, we see O'Kelly was asked to explain WHEN he was directed to stop defending Brendan and instead gather mitigation information that would facilitate a plea deal. The below excerpts picks up as Dvorak has O'Kelly review his handwritten notes from an April 22, 2006 meeting with Barb, Scott, Bobby and Blaine...

 

Direct Examination of O'Kelly by Attorney Dvorak, Day 4 PG 33-47:

 

> Q: I said item number four is -- what I want you to read.

> A: "All agreed that if we can get defendant to turn," dash, "do it."

> Q: All right. In other words, to admit guilt, testify against the co-defendant; correct?

> A: That is correct.

> Q: Okay. And you said that that was not your -- these are not your ideas?

> A: That's correct.

> Q: These are -- ideas are Mr. Kachinsky ideas?

> A: No.

> Q: Where did these ideas come from?

> A: This information came from my client, Mr. Dassey's family.

> Q: Okay. So the family, you're saying, was suggesting that Mr. Dassey should turn State's evidence against Steven Avery?

> A: All this information, one through ten, is from the family is my recollection.

> Q: When you -- when you talk about the family, that it was the family's idea that came up with this, who -- who in the family were you talking about?

> A: Barb Janda, if I'm pronouncing her name correctly, uh, the stepfather, Scott Tadych. I spoke with Blaine, uh, the brother of -- of Brendan. And Bobby the brother of Brendan.

> Q: What instructions did you receive from Mr, Kachinsky? If you remember?

> A: I can tell you initially I was told to gather defense -- defense information for Mr. Dassey. And at some point, at one junction, it did change and it went to securing information for a plea bargain process.

> Q: Okay. Do you recall when in relation to April 27 it was that that happened? Best of your recollection.

> A: Best rec -- rec -- best of my recollection, based upon what I've seen so far, it would be before April 22. Those notes. On or about that day, I should say.

> Q: And what discussion do you recall having with Mr. Kachinsky about going in that new direction? What did he want you to do?

> A: We were to gather mitigation information. We were to gather anything that would further the State's case against Steven Avery. We were to gather whatever we could to put Brendan Dassey in the best light we could. The goal was to preserve as much of Brendan Dassey's freedom as we could. And that's --

> Q: And were you aware that Brendan Dassey at this point was maintaining that he was not involved in the homicide of Teresa Halbach?

> A: Yes.

> Q: And would you read the next paragraph [from Exhibit 64] "I'm not concerned."

> A: "I am not concerned with finding connecting evidence placing Brendan inside the crime scene as Brendan will be State's primary witness."

> Q: Okay. Can you stop there? I have a question just to clarify the meaning of that? In other words, you're not concerned whether or not, at this point, what's happening is if you find evidence that would tend to inculpate Brendan; correct?

> A: That is correct.

> Q: All right. Go ahead and read.

> A: "This will only serve to bolster the prosecution. Period. It will actually benefit the State if there is evidence attributed to Brendan. Period. It will corroborate his testimony and color him truthful."

> Q: Okay. So your goal is not only to get Brendan to confess, but to also go out and gather evidence to help the State in its prosecution; correct?

> A: That is correct.

> Q: Even if that evidence tends to inculpate Brendan Dassey?

> A: That is correct.

 

Closing thoughts...

 

• In summary, O'Kelly claims Kachinsky initially hired him to defend Brendan, but on or shortly before April 22, 2006, there was a meeting with Brendan's family that resulted in a shift in Kachinsky's strategy where he no longer was trying to defend Brendan, but instead began gathering information that would further the State's case against Steven Avery, even if that info further inculpated Brendan. O'Kelly claims the idea to have Brendan turn on Steven originated from Brendan's family, specifically Barb and Scott (he also mentions Bobby and Blaine). He referenced an April 22 note take after a meeting with Barb, Scott, Bobby and Blaine that said - "All agreed that if we can get defendant to turn - do it."

 

• I personally can't accept O'Kelly's claim that Kachinsky's pre April 22 plan was to actually defend Brendan. After all, Kachinsky's first statement to the media (March 7) involved him declaring Brendan guilty, something Kachinsky later admitted he "should definitely not" have said. Even after meeting Brendan and learning he had recanted his confession and was maintaining his innocence, Kachinsky continued making similar comments implying Brendan was guilty with "no defense." Kachinsky made NO PUBLIC STATEMENTS wherein he relayed Brendan's claims of innocence. He never admonished the state for its treatment of Brendan. And he began mentioning a plea deal long before April 22, 2006.

 

• Further, although O'Kelly's invoice does indicate a meeting occurred with Barb, Scott, Bobby and Blaine on April 22, 2006, I question O'Kelly's claim that statements from Barb were the source of O'Kelly's handwritten April 22, 2006 note that: "All agreed that if we can get defendant to turn - do it." I initially considered Barb may have been under pressure during this April 22, 2006 meeting due to the April 21, 2006 seizure of the PC from Bobby's room. Was she concerned about what might come out and agreed it was best for Brendan to flip on Steven to keep the focus on him? That is a plausible scenario, I thought. But still, if Barb had genuinely agreed on April 22 that Brendan should turn on Steven, it makes little sense for her to later repeatedly advise Brendan not to plead guilty and to actively seek Kachinsky's removal for having suggested exactly that.

 

• Frankly, I don't know how to explain O'Kelly contemporaneous note from an April 22, 2006 meeting with Barb, Scott, Bobby and Blaine. Something isn't adding up, and O'Kelly isn't truthworthy. Did Barb actually agree to this? Was she momentarily panicked about what might happen after Fassbender seized her computer only a day earlier? Did O'Kelly pressure, mislead, or misreport what Barb said? Or was O'Kelly lying? Was that handwritten note not referencing discussion with Barb at all, but discussion with Scott and Bobby, or Kachinsky and LE? ... "ALL agreed that if WE can get defendant to turn - DO IT."

 

• Either way, it seems undisputed the April 22, 2006 handwritten note indicating a desire to have Brendan flip on Steven was not based on contact with Brendan, but reflects contact with some other party advocating for Brendan's counsel to work towards Brendan flipping. Whether that other party was Kachinsky, law enforcement, or Barb and Scott, the strategy to turn Brendan against Steven was clearly imposed on him, not chosen by him or even designed for his best interest. Brendan recanted his coerced confession. He told Kachinsky he didn't do it. He told O'Kelly he didn't do it. And instead of investigating that claim, instead of defending him, they decided he was guilty and (without his input) worked to incriminate him and get him to confess again before feeding him back to police without any counsel present or any plea deal actually on the table. That's despicable. Not good defense work.

NEW DISCOVERY: Examining the Second Corrected 1985 Victim Statement from Penelope Beernsten

 

• For context, the initial 1985 MTSO report released via FOIA mentions only ONE statement from Penny, the statement she gave to Dvorak on the evening of the assault. The same statement Penny was told to sign despite not being able to read it. There is no mention in the previously released 1985 MTSO report that Penny was not satisfied with Dvorak's version of her statement...

 

• But as I recently learned per Page 345 of the 2003 DOJ Report, after Steven's exoneration Penny told Strauss when she regained her vision in 1985 she reviewed Dvorak's version of her statement and realized "there were errors" specifically refarding "the sequence of events." Strauss notes Penny "asked MTSO to complete a second more accurate statement." This second statement was provided to MTSO on August 1, 1985 (the first on July 29, 1985).

 

• Luckily (thank you foul play team) Penny's second statement is on page 168 of the 2003 DOJ report. I compared both Penny's first and second statements, and although there's some minor difference, one major difference stands out as a giant overlooked red flag from the 1985 case. I've classified this as a NEW discovery because I've never seen Penny's second statement discussed anywhere in MaM, TIK, SCAM, or even on reddit or YouTube. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Incorrect Post Attack Sequence of Events from Penny's first statement

 

• Per Dvorak's initial version of Penny's statement (PG 159, 2003 DOJ report) Penny said she saw a man wearing pants and shirt near a poplar tree putting on a black leather jacket. Shortly after this, the man ran after her, gabbed her, and dragged her west amidst the sand dunes and trees to assault her. Penny said she was crying out for help during the attack, and confirmed she got her broken fingernails from "going after him."

 

• Dvorak then vaguely reported Penny "got away" from her attacker, who went "west" while Penny "ran towards a sailboat but they (in the boat) could not hear her." When she got to the beach she was "crawling through the sand dunes and saw a couple on the beach. They heard and saw [her] and came over." They put a towel around her and called police.

 

• From my review, the description of Penny's attacker and the attack itself remains largely unchanged between her first and second statement ... but the sequence of events immediately following the attack are noticeably altered. The most obvious post attack addition to Penny's second corrected statement stands out as a literal overlooked red flag.

 

The Man in the Red Shirt Walking Away from Penny After the Attack

 

• Per Page 168 of the 2003 DOJ Report, in her second corrected statement (August 1, 1985). First, Penny makes clear she "yelled out towards the sailboat" for help as she was being dragged west from the beach into the tree line. She was not running and calling for help to the sailboat after her attacker's sudden departure, as Dvorak incorrectly documented. Penny was laying in the sand after the attack, not running through it.

 

• Penny then (DOJ 2003 PG 171) explains that "before [she] thought [she] should crawl towards the beach [she] saw a man in red t-shirt walking on the crest of the dunes." Penny said as she lay in the sand she "hollered to the man in the red t-shirt, Help, Help!" Penny recalls feeling as though she was "hollering loudly" but suspects everything was coming out garbled because "the man in the red t-shirt just kept walking north." Penny said it was only after failing to alert red shirt guy to her plea for help that she crawled towards the beach.

 

• Oh boy lol So on the evening of her assault, Dvorak and Kocourek took a traumatized, blurry-eyed assault victim and had her sign a statement she could not read that omitted mention a second man who was present near the crime scene after the attack. Worse, when the victim regained her sight and corrected the record (adding a man in a red shirt walking away from her cries) MTSO did not investigate who red shirt guy was, whether he was an unidentified witness, the attacker himself, or maybe even a nearby lookout accomplice to the attacker still free in the community. Due to a lack of investigation by MTSO, the conclusions we can draw about this are limited, but some scenarios can be more credibly ruled out than others.

 

Did Gregory Allen Double Back North After Departing West?

 

• Reports from Penny's first statement were at least correct in that Penny said her attacker was wearing "a black leather jacket and long pants [or] long trousers." During her second statement, Penny confirmed the black leather jacket detail, and said she thought the pants were "faded blue jeans with a zipper." She also said after her attacker undid his pants, she saw "white jockey shorts, not boxer shorts, but briefs." In post trial interviews, Penny claims her attacker's shirt was brown in color. She consistently said her attacker departed to the west.

 

• Per DOJ 2003 Report PG 169 we see a partial transcript of Penny's second more correct statement, where she offers a slightly more detailed description of red shirt guy than Dvorak's reporting. In this partial transcript, Penny recalled: "I saw a guy on the crest of the dunes. He had on a red t-shirt and was of medium build. I don't remember if he looked towards me, he just kept walking. He had on a swimsuit or short shorts." This man was walking away from Penny headed north.

 

• So if this "red shirt guy" was Gregory Allen himself doubling back north after taking off west, he must have ditched his black leather jacket, brown shirt, and pants (and then put on a bathing suit and a red shirt) before doubling back to be in view of his victim. However, no police or scent hounds found Allen's jacket, shirt, or pants anywhere northwest of the scuffle in the sand, and subsequent two rivers reports suggests Allen remained in possession of his black leather jacket post July 1985.

 

A Lookout Accomplice or Unidentified Witness?

 

• Although not dispositive due to her blurred vision, it's worth noting when Penny corrected the record to include the red shirt guy in short shorts, she made clear her instinct wasn't to avoid him or stay quiet, but to immediately call out to him for help. Presumably, Penny visually distinguished this man from her attacker via a difference in their wardrobe (brown shirt, black leather jacket, long pants VS red shirt and short shorts). And with no evidence that Gregory Allen ditched his jacket, shirt, or pants somewhere northwest of the scuffle, I suspect Penny's initial instinct was correct. Red shirt guy was not her attacker doubling back after a costume change.

 

• But if not Allen, then who was this guy? A witness police never identified? Allen's lookout accomplice? Whoever he was, he deserved investigation and identification. So naturally, MTSO treated him like he didn't exist by omitting him from the record. And then after Penny corrected the record to include him, MTSO didn't seem interested in tracking down this man to find out who he was, why he was at the beach, or what he might know. That's odd IMO. Police had every reason to want answers about this man's identity given his proximity to the crime scene and his direction of travel upon being noticed by the victim.

 

• Penny first saw red shirt guy walking AWAY from her headed north shortly after Allen suddenly fled west. That trajectory (walking away from Penny) would presumably place red shirt guy CLOSER to her in the moments before she noticed him ... meaning he may have been very nearby to Allen and Penny while the assault was ongoing. Did this guy walk right past Allen and Penny without noticing them? Did he approach and then turn around after seeing something he thought he shouldn't see? Or was he acting as a lookout, signaling Allen when it was time to leave, and then attempting to depart nonchalantly himself? We don't know. MTSO didn't care to find out.

 

The Harassing Phone Calls Penny received in 1985 After Steven's Arrest were Sexual in Nature and Referenced the Attack

 

• In 1983 Gregory Allen attempted an attack on the same beach he attacked Penny on in 1985. After being charged for the 1983 attempted attack, Allen called the victim, harassing her and requesting she drop the charges against him. This was upsetting to the victim, as she didn't know how Allen got her number. In 1985, after Steven Avery was quickly arrested for the beach attack on Penny, she began receiving harassing phone calls that were sexual and nature and referenced the attack. Some of these disturbing sexual calls came within minutes of Penny arriving home, suggesting she was being actively watched by someone still free in the community. Someone other than Steven Avery.

 

• For obvious reasons, most accept these harassing calls to Penny in 1985 came from Gregory Allen. But the point here is what Kocourek and Vogel claimed to believe at the time in 1985. If they want to pretend they truly believed Steven was guilty, then the disturbing calls Penny was getting after Steven's arrest had to be coming from someone still free and possibly stalking Penny. That should have been a crisis that motivated the County to consider if the person still out there harassing Penny with sexual calls mentioning the attack was red shirt guy, who may have only been on the beach that day because he was operating as a lookout accomplice for Allen.

 

• As far as I know, there was no investigation or reporting on WHO the red shirt guy was, and no reporting re the true volume or origin of the harassing calls Penny received in the weeks following Steven's arrest. The lack of probing here was likely because Kocourek and Vogel had reason to know Allen was guilty and likely the one stalking and harassing Penny by phone. They also had reason to know evidence credibly demonstrated Steven Avery didn't have the opportunity to be on that beach as the sole attacker, or accomplice, nor did he have the opportunity to harass Penny by phone after the attack.

 

TL;DR: Another Suppressed and then Overlooked Red Flag by MTSO

 

• Upon regaining her vision in 1985 and reading the victim statement she was told to sign without being able to read, Penny noticed enough errors and omissions and requested to provide a second more accurate statement to MTSO. In this second statement, Penny clarified that after her attacker departed west (wearing black leather jacket, brown shirt, long pants, and white briefs) she noticed a second unidentified man (in a red t-shirt and short shorts) walking north away from her and the scene of the crime. As she lay in the sand, Penny called out to red shirt guy for help, but he just kept walking away, possibly because Penny's speech was coming out garbled.

 

• Although we can't say for sure, IMO the red shirt guy in short shorts is most likely exactly what Penny thought he was - a separate man who happened to be near the crime scene shortly after the attack ended. There's no evidence suggesting Allen, after taking off west, ditched his black leather jacket, brown shirt, and long pants only to don a different wardrobe and double back north. In fact, subsequent reports suggest Allen retained possession of his black leather jacket and continued prowling in it. But whoever red shirt guy was (Allen, his accomplice, or a witness) identifying him mattered. So why did MTSO manipulate Penny to sign that statement without reading it that omitted red shirt guy, and why did they fail to follow up on him after Penny corrected the record to include him?

 

• Not to mention, if Kocourek and Vogel genuinely believed Steven Avery attacked Penny, then Penny's own corrected statement about a second man walking away from the scene, plus the sexually charged harassing calls she got after Steven was already in jail, should have prompted police to wonder whether the red shirt guy was a nearby lookout accomplice to Allen that was still free in the community harassing and maybe even watching Penny. But they never considered that, likely because they knew Steven was innocent and Allen was the guilty party still out there harassing and stalking his victim. For Kocourek and Vogel, identifying the origin of harassing phone calls, or even the identity of the red shirt guy, both carried the potential to raise questions they were not prepared to answer.

 

• I will quickly note - per the 2003 AG conclusion,Allen was the chief suspect in a 1975 North Carolina murder, and MTSO reports confirm Allen allegedly operated with an accomplice in that murder. When Allen made his way to Wisconsin (around 1980) he was surprisingly comfortable prowling police neighborhoods, and seemed to be the beneficiary of an unusually cooperative relationship with the Manitowoc County DA's office. Vogel seemed particularly invested in questioning Allen's guilt in this and other cases, including when fellow officers caught Allen breaking the law while wearing his black leather jacket. Allen and his history remain a mystery, as does the County's treatment of him.

 

• Apparently there's still plenty of new information to learn in this saga. If evidence were to ever surface more firmly suggesting Allen had a nearby lookout accomplice that day on the beach, the unidentified red shirt guy would be the most obvious candidate. But setting speculation aside, IMO this new information - Penny's corrected statement mentioning the red shirt guy - together with the harassing calls she received after Steven's arrest, demands the conclusion that MTSO not only ignored evidence pointing to Allen as the attacker, they actively suppressed and then outright ignored evidence from Penny herself of a potential overlooked witness, or maybe even a lookout accomplice still free in the community stalking and harassing her. Oh, and then for good measure, Manitowoc County prosecuted a man they had reason to know had no opportunity to fulfill either the attacker or accomplice role.

INTRO: Evidence has ALWAYS credibly and consistently demonstrated that Steven Avery didn't even have the opportunity to be at the scene of the crime at the time of the 1985 attack on Penny Beernsten

 

• On YouTube and (less frequently) on Reddit, certain users have kept alive the niche theory that Steven Avery could still be guilty of the 1985 assault on Penny Beernsten, though such theories often avoid the specifics of HOW Steven could still be guilty given the overwhelming exculpatory evidence of his innocence. As we know, the most well known proponent of this niche vague theory is former Manitowoc County Chief Deputy Gene Kusche, who famously questioned the validity of the 2003 DNA test that exonerated Steven, and later speculated even if the DNA implicating Allen was legitimate, Steven could still be guilty by having operated as Gregory Allen's accomplice in the 1985 assault.

 

• But Penny (the living victim) consistently described being attacked by a lone male, and despite what Kusche hoped people would believe, there's no credible reason to doubt the validity of the 2003 DNA result that implicated Gregory Allen as that lone male. In fact, Gregory Allen's name turning up made perfect sense. From the beginning, Penny's description of a lone violent beach attacker wearing a black leather jacket didn't sound like Steven Avery, it sounded like Gregory Allen ... a violent offender previously charged with attempting an attack on that same beach, an offender who had other run ins with police while prowling in a black leather jacket.

 

• Further, even before DNA identified Allen as Penny's sole beach attacker, the weight of the evidence already credibly demonstrated Steven didn't even have the opportunity to be at the Two Rivers beach crime scene in 1985 at the time of the assault. Thus, any remaining theories that Steven could have acted as Penny's sole attacker, or Allen's accomplice, are not reasonable inferences from the record. They are post fact rationalizations designed to rebrand an intentional wrongful conviction of an innocent man as an accidentally legitimate conviction of a still guilty man.

 

The 1985 Beach Accomplice Theory

 

• As we saw in MaM, after DNA evidence implicated Gregory Allen and exonerated Steven Avery in 2003, former Manitowoc County official Gene Kusche disputed that the DNA result implicating Allen proved Avery was innocent of the 1985 assault. When pressed, Kusche didn't question the 2003 DNA result matched Allen, but did question where the DNA came from, explaining his opinion that "DNA evidence [had] been fabricated before." The implication, I guess, was that Steven could still be guilty of the 1985 assault if the 2003 DNA test exonerating him had been fabricated.

 

• But if Steven were actually guilty of the 1985 crime, why would the state (or anyone) fabricate DNA results that frees a guilty man and exposes the county to maximum liability for (checks notes) zero obvious gain? That makes no sense without some major adjustment to provide a coherent explanation of the state's motives. Even Kusche seemed to understand that. After Steven was charged with Teresa Halbach's murder in 2005 (based in part on DNA evidence) Kusche abandoned the idea that DNA was fabricated in 2003, and began arguing even if said DNA match to Allen was legit, it didn't prove Steven was innocent. As Griesbach recounts, Kusche's revised theory was that "Avery and Allen could have both assaulted Penny on the beach that day" (TIK 239).

 

• Of course, this new theory openly disregards Penny's consistent account of a single beach attacker, and IMO it's not credible to suggest Penny was unaware or forgot a second man was assaulting her alongside Allen. Thus, if we accept the 2003 DNA result implicating Allen as the sole attacker was legitimate, but still assume Allan had an accomplice, we must conclude this accomplice was nearby during the attack but unseen by Penny, possibly acting as a lookout. That's the only version of this niche theory that doesn't disregard the living victim's memory, or require us to engage with flatly illogical or self defeating arguments about DNA being fabricated to falsely exonerate a guilty man.

 

Question: Could Gregory Allen have been aided by a nearby but UNSEEN accomplice?

 

• Short answer: nothing in the record supports that conclusion. After the July 29, 1985 attack, Penny Beernsten told MTSO officer Dvorak that during an afternoon jog along the shore of a Two Rivers beach she noticed a lone male "standing in the shadow of a poplar tree" wearing "a black leather jacket," something thought Penny thought was strange because of the heat. A bit later, the man in the black leather jacket began chasing after Penny, and grabbed / dragged her west into the treeline where he assaulted her. The attack began shortly before 4:00 PM, lasted roughly 15 minutes, and during the attack Penny periodically called out for help and pled for mercy, to no avail.

 

• Suddenly, the man in the black leather jacket knocked Penny to the ground and quickly took off west into the trees out of sight. A dazed and fearful Penny began crawling the opposite direction, east towards the beach. She didn't notice anyone until she saw a young couple walking north in her direction, but closer to the shore. The couple (later identified in police reports) saw Penny, heard her cries for help, and offered her a towel while they waited for her husband, police or an ambulance to arrive (which they quickly did).

 

• Per available records, Penny never mentioned a second man being involved in the attack, nor did she mention a second unidentified man keeping a lookout during the attack, or walking away from the scene after the attack. Further, no evidence was ever presented at Steven's 1985 trial (or at any point since) suggesting Allen was aided by a lookout accomplice that day. But again, for the sake of argument, I hope everyone understands, even if we entertain this "unseen lookout accomplice" theory, the record STILL overwhelmingly points away from Gregory Allen's unseen accomplice being Steven Avery.

 

Steven didn't have the opportunity to be the sole attacker of Penny OR Gregory Allen's nearby unseen accomplice

 

• In "The Innocent Killer," Griesbach correctly notes Steven wasn't as good a match for Penny's description as MTSO liked to pretend. Police knew Steven was too young, too short, and had the wrong eye color. Further, police knew Steven had straight hair and dirty hands on the night of his arrest, while Penny's attacker had curly/straggly hair and clean hands. Griesbach even admits he suspected Kusche's composite drawing and the resulting identification process was "a total scam" or "fraud" designed to manipulate Penny to falsely incriminate Steven. After all, even back in 1985 police has reason to know Avery was credibly accounted for at the time of the attack on Penny, and was nowhere near the scene of the crime.

 

• As Steven's former counsel noted in MaM, if the 16 witnesses and receipt record alibiing Steven were to be believed (and they were remarkably consistent) then Steven could not have attacked Penny in Two Rivers around 4 PM, because he had no discernible opportunity be at the crime scene at the time of the attack. Multiple witnesses consistently placed Steven at the ASY between 3:30 - 4 PM, and evidence credibly suggested after he left the ASY he drove northwest to Green Bay (not southeast to Two Rivers) where he was spotted by independent witnesses buying paint with his wife and five kids (corroborated by store provided receipt).

 

• In 1985, the state got around this "problem" by hiding evidence of Allen's profile / history, claiming Steven's family and friends lied about when he left the ASY, and then staging a recreation to prove Steven had time (post attack) to drive from the Two Rivers crime scene to the Green Bay Shopko (where he was seen with his family). But to make the timeline fit, police sped directly from the beach to the Shopko ... without accounting for a stop at Steven's house in Maribel to pick up his wife after the crime ... meaning in order for Steven to be guilty, Lori and the kids had to have been with Steven in Two Rivers while he assaulted Penny.

 

Even before DNA identified Allen, the record "virtually proved" Steven didn't have the opportunity to be at the Two Rivers beach crime scene.

 

• The idea that Steven's wife, family, family friends, and independent witnesses all told consistent lies to alibi Steven requires increasingly absurd concessions - You must accept everyone lied about Steven packing his wife, three young kids, and newborn twin boys into a vehicle and leaving the ASY an hour or more before they actually did, and then instead of quickly taking Lori and the kids home, you must assume Steven drove them all to Two Rivers ... only to abandon his wife and 5 kids with the vehicle while he stalked and assaulted Penny by 4:00 PM ... after which he returned and raced Lori and the kids to Green Bay to buy paint and be seen by witnesses around 5:00 PM.

 

• Not to mention, despite Steven being unable to speak with anyone for a week after his warrant-less arrest, what he said to police (in isolation) somehow perfectly matched what his wife and everyone else said to police. What Steven and Lori said perfectly matched what Steven's family, friends, and even what employees at the Shopko clerk said. What Steven, Lori and the Shopko clerk said was corroborated by a store provided receipt record. According to Griesbach, such evidence of consistently compounding uncoordinated corroboration of Steven's alibi "virtually proved he didn't commit the assault" (TIK 134)

 

• Manitowoc County police had to reason to know that evidence credibly suggested Gregory Allen was the guilty party, but also that evidence credibly suggested Steven Avery was physically incapable of being involved in the attack at the time and location Penny described. Steven's 1985 wrongful conviction was NOT a case of mistaken identity. It was a case of corrupt police and prosecutors ignoring evidence that Allen was a far more viable suspect, while dismissing Steven's credibly corroborated alibi as fabricated so the focus could remain on him. As a result, the man police had reason to know was guilty (the actual rapist) continued prowling and assaulting innocent women for a decade more ... and even had an additional run-in with police while wearing a black leather jacket.

 

TLDR: Evidence consistently and credibly suggests Steven Avery DID NOT have the opportunity to be on the Two Rivers beach by 4 PM on July 29, 1985, whether as the sole attacker of Penny or as Gregory Allen's unseen "lookout" accomplice.

 

• Gregory Allen being implicated by DNA evidence as the lone male black leather jacket wearing man who violently attacked Penny on the beach in 1985 wasn't some suspicious result that didn't match up with known facts. Allen being guilty made perfect sense. He was a known violent offender operating on an escalating basis in the Two Rivers area, a man who was supposed to be (but was not) under police watch when Penny was assaulted on the beach. A man who had already tried to attack a woman on that same beach, and later contacted the victim by phone. A man who had multiple other encounters with police while prowling, including while prowling in a black leather jacket.

 

• As for Steven, at the time of the July 29, 1985 Two Rivers beach assault on Penny, he was consistently accounted for at the ASY (Larrabee / Mishicot area). Evidence credibly suggested Steven was still on the ASY as the Two Rivers stalking and attack on Penny began, and further suggested when Steven did leave the ASY, he, Lori and their five kids went northwest to the Shopko in Green Bay, rather than heading southeast to the beach in Two Rivers. Police and prosecutors had overwhelming reason to know both that Gregory Allen was guilty, and that Steven Avery didn't even have the opportunity to be on that Two Rivers beach that day in 1985.

 

• The idea that Steven's family and independent witnesses all told consistent lies to alibi Steven requires absurd concessions: Did Steven drag Lori and their five young kids to the scene only to leave them alone during the assault, and return to quickly drive to Green Bay to buy paint before going back home to Maribel, all without Lori ever admitting Steven was unaccounted for at or near the scene of the crime at the time of the assault? After Steven's arrest, did he and everyone else just magically deliver surprisingly consistent but totally false statements supporting his false alibi without Steven making a single phone? Naw. Even Griesbach can admit the most parsimonious explanation for such levels of uncoordinated consistency across multiple actors / records is that they were all telling the truth. Steven was innocent of the 1985 crime for which he was charged, and his wife and family knew it.

 

• This means even before DNA inculpated Allen in 2003, evidence consistently and credibly showed Steven Avery was not a viable suspect for the 1985 beach attack on Penny and should never have been considered as such by Kocourek and Vogel. Unlike Gregory Allen, Steven Avery had no history of attempted attacks on that beach, was not being watched by police due to escalating violence in the area, and was credibly accounted for at the time of the attack on Penny. Because of that lack of opportunity, Steven was never a viable suspect for the 1985 crime, and him being recast as Gregory Allen's unseen accomplice remains an absurd idea, as that recasting doesn't erase Steven's complete lack of opportunity to be at the crime scene with Allen.

 

• But again, this is only a logical argument in response to the illogical suggestion that Steven could still be guilty of the 1985 crime as the sole attacker, or as Allen's accomplice. As far as I know, there's no reason to doubt the validity of the 2003 DNA test implicating Allen as the sole attacker, and there's no evidence MTSO hid or misreported witness statements in 1985 to conceal a second unidentified man was near the crime scene shortly after the attack, and no evidence police failed to investigate potential communications between Allen and a nearby lookout accomplice. But logically speaking, if there was such evidence linking Allen to a nearby but unseen accomplice, the record already convincingly demonstrates that person was not Steven Avery.

Bad Faith on Steroids: Calling someone racist for an opinion they never made

 

• How did we get here? In two previous posts (See here and also here) I laid out how Griesbach, Kratz, and Brenda have consistently misrepresents DCI S/A Pevytoe's testimony about the tire wire bone evidence to suggest bones couldn't have been planted in the burn pit. In truth, Pevytoe very clearly testified he could not rule out planting, and couldn't even say if in situ burning or post cremation planting was the more or less likely option. I correctly pointed out (contrary to the state's claims) the tire wire evidence is diagnostically useless. It proves nothing about a primary burn site.

 

• I also pointed out state defenders continue to accept the state's distortion of Pevytoe's testimony, and call anyone who points it out "insane." They also claim it's insane to request credible testimony or evidence demonstrating the state's position on Steven's burn pit. Rather than respond with facts, reason, or logic, state defenders resort to pathologizing users for noticing the state's distortions and lies. Painting legitimate criticism of the state's case as conspiracy is their favorite bad faith move. But as I recently learned, it's not their only move lol

 

• After I pointed out this years long pattern of state officials and defenders distorting Pevytoe's testimony on the tire wire evidence, I saw a new bad faith tactic from state defenders. Instead of addressing my argument about them accepting the state's distortions and calling anyone who doesn't accept them insane, state defenders doubled down. They first clarified I was apparently insane because I believed in a "frame job." Except nowhere did my posts mention a frame job. I simply cited facts: concealed evidence of off-property human cremation - no photo proof of bones in Steven's burn pit - no proof Steven's burn pit was primary burn site - Pevytoe refusing to rule out planting followed by the state distorting his testimony to suggest he said something he didn't. That's not a conspiracy theory. That's a summary of the trial record. But instead of coping, state defenders ... well ... they don't start acting sane.

 

• Per this troubling comment, a state defender recently called me "racist for thinking OJ is guilty, but Steve isn't." Yeah ... Except I have NEVER expressed an opinion about OJ Simpson's guilt or innocence. I honestly don't know enough about that case to say. I know about the "if the glove doesn't fit you must acquit" line. I also remember watching an episode of Oprah with my mom (back in the day) where she recounted how frustrated she was that OJ got off. I also remember some black members of her audience being very happy OJ was not convicted. I have not researched the OJ Simpson case myself, however, and NEVER have rendered an opinion on his guilt here or elsewhere. So when a state defender called me racist for an opinion I never expressed, they didn't just prove my point about bad faith, they proved they will literally invent positions and hurl racial accusations rather than discuss Pevytoe's testimony.

 

• So to be clear - state defenders invented that position on OJ Simpson for me and called me racist for it, not because they are acting in good faith, but because they cannot defend the state's lies and distortions in this case about the bones and burn pit, and can't stand that there are still users remaining who know enough to point these lies and distortions out. So they pivoted to an entirely different case, fabricated an opinion I don't hold, and used that fabrication to call me racist. That's beyond fucked up, especially because every single time they respond with deflection instead of evidence, every time they use unreasonable attacks instead of reasonable arguments, they are proving my original point correct.

 

Telling the truth about the state's distortions is not insane, but accusing someone of being racist for something they never said is very insane

 

• State defenders don't like what I said not because it's wrong, but because they cannot refute a single fact I presented about Pevytoe's testimony and how Griesbach, Kratz and Brenda have been distorting it for years, including to a national audience. So instead, they (1) call me insane for noticing the state's distortions, (2) accuse me of believing in a "frame job" I never mentioned to deflect from credible case criticisms, and (3) call me racist based on a fabricated opinion about a different case that I never expressed. That is a complete collapse of intellectual honesty. SO yeah, state defenders have gone to incredible lengths to prove my point for me. They apparently can't help themselves.

 

• In Summary, bad faith is when state defenders refuse to engage with the actual record, accept the state's lies, call those who point them out insane, and then invent conclusions that were never made, and call users racist for things they never said. Again, state defenders who act this way forfeit any right to judge anyone else's sanity when their own argument requires accepting lies about testimony, calling those who won't accept lies insane, and calling people racist for something they never said. The record is clear. The state distorted Pevytoe's words. State defenders can't defend that distortion, so instead they attack, invent, deny, even to the point of accusing people of being racist for something they never said.** Fucked up.

 

• As I've said before, someone who acts like this has no interest in good faith discussion. Consider the double standard: if any of us had called a state defender racist based on an opinion they never expressed about an entirely different case, they would never let it go, and rightly so. But when they do it to us, we're expected to pretend it's a legitimate argument. It's not. It's an ad hominem attack, and a particularly indefensible one. Frankly, at this point, I'm starting to question whether any state defenders left have the ability (or even the interest) to respond in good faith to credible criticisms without resorting to cheap smears and logical fallacies. Let's see lol

 

• For any state defender willing to get back on the good faith train - please explain why you accept Kratz, Griesbach, and Brenda's repeated distortion of Pevytoe's testimony, when Pevytoe himself said he could not rule out planting, could not say whether burning or planting was more likely, and that the tire wire evidence therefore proves nothing about Steven's burn pit being the primary burn site. If the state actually had credible evidence, why do its most prominent defenders need to consistently misrepresent what their own expert said?

 

• I understand the dilemma they face. I really do. If they admit the bones could have been planted, it opens the door to asking where they may have been planted from, and that question points directly to human cremation evidence on County land and inside police controlled barrels with broken chains of custody. I get it. But that's not excuse to attack users by calling them racist for something they never said. So, tell me, can ANY state defender address ANY of my points about Pevytoe (and the state's ongoing distortion of his testimony) honestly, or has your positions become indefensible without distortion and name calling? I think it's very obvious it has. But please, I would appreciate state defenders trying to prove me wrong on this point, rather than proving me right over and over.

INTRO:

 

• On YouTube and (less frequently) on Reddit, state defenders have kept alive the niche conspiracy theory that Steven Avery was actually guilty of the 1985 assault on Penny Beernsten. Yes, really.

 

• I don't know HOW serious these users are. In order for Steven to still be guilty of the 1985 assault, there needs to be some narrative retrofitting of well established truths, such as the validity of the 2003 DNA result exonerating Steven, or the number of perpetrators involved in the 1985 attack.

 

• Users making these claims online never get too specific about HOW Steven could reasonably be guilty. The only figure from the case who has offered relevant speculation is Kusche. So let's examine Kusche's theories about the idea that Steven could still be guilty of the 1985 assault to determine the most credible logical baseline for this totally incredible theory to operate under.

 

Did they Fabricate DNA Results? Or did Gregory Allen have an Accomplice?

 

• As we know, in 2003 DNA incriminated Gregory Allen as the sole attacker of Penny during the 1985 beach attack, and Allen was known to have attempted an attack on that same beach years earlier. That 2003 DNA result (along with a review of the case files by Rohrer and Griesbach) motivated Manitowoc County to request Steven Avery be exonerated and released. Within weeks he was. But as Making a Murderer showed, even with Steven's exoneration being requested by Manitowoc County, certain (former) Manitowoc County officials couldn't bring themselves to admit Steven's innocence.

 

• During his October 26, 2005, deposition for Steven's lawsuit, Gene Kusche testified under oath that he didn't know whether Steven was actually innocent of the 1985 assault. While he didn't dispute the DNA result matched Allen, he openly questioned where the DNA came from, stating his opinion that "DNA evidence [has] been fabricated before." But ... if Steven was actually guilty, why would anyone need to tamper with DNA evidence at all? And if someone (for some unknown reason) did need to manipulate DNA evidence, why manipulate a result that frees a guilty prisoner and exposes the county to unnecessary liability?

 

• A conspiracy that includes no reasonable chance for the conspirators to benefit from their conspiracy, but a very good chance of exposing the state to unnecessary liability, is a nonsense theory. I won't consider it any further, unless someone wants to offer an actual motive for why a state official would fabricate a DNA result that falsely exonerated a guilty man. IMO the only reasonable conclusion (overwhelming supported by the record and Allen's history of attacks) is the 2003 DNA result implicating Gregory Allen was legitimate.

 

• In fact, Kusche himself eventually moved on from the DNA fabrication theory ... after Steven was charged with and linked to Teresa Halbach's murder via DNA evidence. At that point, Kusche pivoted to suggesting the DNA evidence implicating Allen was NOT fabricated, while maintaining said legitimate result still didn't prove Steven was innocent, because according to Kusche's theory: "Avery and Allen could have both assaulted Penny Beerntsen on the beach that day."

 

• Of course, this new "accomplice theory" from Kusche disregards Penny's consistent claim that only one man attacked her. I don't believe it's credible to suggest Penny was unaware of another man physically abusing her along with Allen. Therefore, if we accept the 2003 DNA result as legitimate (indicating Gregory Allen was the one physically assaulting Penny) but still assume (for the sake of argument and logical discussion) that Steven Avery was operating as Gregory Allen's accomplice (while being unseen to Penny) then we must assume Steven was somewhere nearby but out of Penny's sight, possibly acting as a lookout for Allen.

 

Could Gregory Allen have had a Nearby but Unseen Accomplice?

 

• Short answer: The record doesn't support that conclusion. After the July 29, 1985 attack, Penny relayed her harrowing ordeal to MTSO Officer Dvorak, who recorded Penny's statement via note pad. Recall in MaM we learned after Penny gave her statement, she was encouraged to sign it despite not being able to read it. In that statement, Dvorak reported that Penny said she was jogging on a Two River beach, and it was warm out. During he jog she noticed someone under the shade of a poplar tree putting on a black leather jacket, an action Penny thought was strange because of the heat.

 

• The man in the black leather jacket then began chasing Penny, grabbed her, and dragged her west into the tree line where she was violently assaulted. The attack lasted no more than 20 minutes and Penny periodically called out for help. Eventually, Penny's attacker suddenly knocked her to the ground and quickly took off west into the trees out of sight. A dazed Penny began crawling the opposite direction, east towards the beach. She eventually saw and called out to a young couple. The couple heard Penny's cries and gave her assistance (comfort and a towel) and waited with her till the ambulance arrived.

 

• Other than the male half of the male / female couple who found her, Police reports confirm Penny never mentioned a second man being involved in the attack or being nearby the scene before or after the assault. And there was never any evidence presented at Steven's 1985 trial, or at any point since, suggesting Gregory Allen was aided by a nearby unseen accomplice who was keeping a lookout on the beach that day. But again, for the sake of argument, even if entertain this "unseen accomplice" theory, I hope everyone understands the record STILL overwhelmingly points away from that person being Steven Avery.

 

Steven didn't have the opportunity to be the sole attacker of Penny or Gregory Allen's nearby unseen accomplice

 

• As we know, Steven wasn't as good a match for Penny's description as some like to pretend. He was too young, too short, had the wrong eye color, and had dirty hands while Penny's attacker's were clean. But logically speaking, if we are entertaining an "unseen accomplice" theory, Steven's appearance is irrelevant, because for the "unseen accomplice" theory, Penny never saw Allen's accomplice, and thus, Steven's appearance is not exculpatory. If we are to truly refute the ideas that Steven acted as Allen's accomplice, we must look at his whereabouts instead of his looks.

 

• As Steven's former counsel said in Making a Murderer: if the 16 witnesses and receipt record alibiing Steven were to be believed (and they were all remarkably consistent) then he could not have attacked Penny on that Two Rivers beach, because he had no discernible opportunity to commit the crime while in Maribel or Green Bay. Being an accomplice lookout for the crime requires being at the crime scene, and Steven was away from crime scene with his family and kids all day.

 

• In 1985, the state got around this issue by concealing evidence of Allen's opportunity and guilt, dismissing Steven's consistent alibi witnesses as fabricators, and then staging a recreation to prove Steven would have had time to make it from the Two Rivers beach to the Green Bay Shopko in time for the clerk to see him there with his wife and kids. But to force the timeline to work (and fabricate the opportunity for Steven to have committed the crime) police literally sped directly from Two Rivers to Green Bay, not stopping at Steven's house to account for Steven picking up his family after committing the crime.

 

• So the idea in 1985 was that Steven dragged his wife and kids (including newborn twins) with him to Two Rivers, left them in the car while he attacked Penny (or watched Allen attack her) and then returned to the car only to speed his family to the Green Bay shopko. That scenario was patently absurd back when they said Steven was the sole attacker of Penny, and the scenario remains absurd even if Steven is recast as Gregory Allen's unseen accomplice.

 

Gregory Allen was alleged to have operated with an accomplice who was not Steven Avery

 

• Any opportunity Steven had of being linked to the crime collapses under the only official and credible timeline, meaning IF Allen operated with an accomplice on the beach that day in 1985, his accomplice was not Steven Avery. It would have to be someone else who actually had opportunity to be there. Maybe someone with a prior link to Allen's criminal world.

 

• Notably, there's some evidence suggesting Allen operated with an accomplice (who was not Steven Avery) both before and after the 1985 beach assault on Penny. First, Allen was the "chief suspect" in the 1975 murder of a young girl in North Carolina, and was alleged to have acted with an accomplice. Second, for Allen's 1991 assault of a young woman, witnesses observed a man matching Allen's description slowly driving the victim's residence pointing it out to another older male in the vehicle.

 

• Although there's nothing conclusive, there's a potential pattern here. IF before and after the 1985 crime Gregory Allen operated with an accomplice who was not Steven Avery, and if Steven Avery didn't even have the opportunity to be Gregory Allen's accomplice for the 1985 crime, then there is no basis to insert Steven into the pool of suspect's for Allen's (theoretical) unseen accomplice for the 1985 crime. It would go against all logic and reason.

 

In Summary: The state fabricating DNA results in 2003 to release a guilty Steven Avery (inviting unnecessary liability) is a self defeating nonsense theory without said theory going through major adjustment. Further, evidence consistently and credibly suggests Steven Avery, whether as the sole attacker or unseen accomplice, did not have the opportunity to be on the Two Rivers beach that day in 1985, and therefore, could not have operated as Gregory Allen's unseen accomplice.

 

• IF Gregory Allen had an unseen accomplice nearby on the beach keeping a lookout, evidence consistently shows that person was not Steven Avery, because he was accounted for at every moment of that day, and never had the opportunity to be on that Two Rivers Beach at the time of the attack. This accomplice, if he existed, was likely someone previously linked to Allen with actual opportunity to be at the crime scene, not someone with no link to Allen and no opportunity to be at the crime scene with him.

 

• Of course, this is only a logical argument in response to the illogical suggestion that Steven shouldn't have been released from prison because he could have been guilty of the assault either as the sole attacker or as Gregory Allen's accomplice. There's no evidence (that I know of) suggesting the 2003 DNA result was unreliable / fabricated, and no evidence that Allen had an accomplice.

 

• For example, there's no evidence MTSO hid witness statements placing a second unidentified man near the crime scene during the attack, or heading away from the scene shortly after the attack. There's also no evidence that police failed to investigate potential communications between Allen and an unseen accomplice. Or evidence that Allen and this person had an intimate relationship. But logically speaking, if there was such evidence linking Allen to an unseen accomplice, the record already demonstrates that person was not Steven Avery.

INTRO: Why do state defenders consider it "borderline insane" to request "actual forensic proof that Teresa Halbach's remains were cremated in Steven Avery's burn pit with tires rather than the fabrications the state currently relies upon to advance that claim?"

 

Clear Evidence of Bad Faith

 

• During Steven's trial, the state failed to present conclusive evidence that Steven's burn pit was the primary burn site of Teresa's body, or even provide photo proof that her bones were actually in the burn pit. Further, witnesses who testified to seeing a burn pit fire at trial admitted under cross examination their initial statements either neglected to mention or specifically denied a fire. In one case, a witness confirmed the shift from "I didn't see a fire" to "I did see a fire" was motivated by police pressure. After deliberations, Steven Avery was acquitted of mutilating Teresa's body in his burn pit (but convicted of her murder).

 

• As we know, ever since the state failed to present proof of a primary burn site / failed to gain the mutilation conviction for Steven, state officials and defenders (like Kreepy Kratz, Grifting Griesbach, and BS Brenda) have all separately implied that the "bone in tire wire" evidence proves Steven's burn pit was the primary burn site, because said evidence proved she had to have been burned in Steven's pit with tires. However, DCI S/A Pevytoe very clearly testified he could not rule out burn pit bone planting, or even say which scenario (planting or in situ burning) was more or less likely. That means the tire wire bone evidence is diagnostically useless. In other words, if bones were found mixed among tire wire, that would support neither side more than the other, because such evidence could be explained by in situ burning or post cremation planting.

 

• Thus, it's a clear and desperate misrepresentation of what Pevytoe said for anyone to imply the bone in tire wire "evidence" proves Steven's burn pit was the primary burn site. State defenders know this, or should. But instead of addressing repeated misrepresentations by the state, defenders block and call others insane for pointing these misrepresentations out or asking for credible unmanipulated evidence or testimony. Attack the messenger. Never engage with an argument showing the state's failures, lies, or misrepresentations. Instead, conflate legitimate case critiques with unreasonable conspiratorial paranoia.

 

• These are textbook bad faith rhetorical tricks the state and its defenders love to exploit. But anyone honest would have to admit refusing to accept misrepresentations of Pevytoe's testimony, and instead asking for credible evidence to support a central but unproven aspect of the state's narrative (that Teresa Halbach's remains were cremated in Steven Avery's burn pit) is not insane or even borderline insane. It's the most basic function of someone searching for the truth in case where the state is actively avoiding it. Suggesting otherwise is what indicates intellectual bankruptcy, and intellectually bankrupt minds don't have any credible currency to evaluate anyone else's intellect or sanity.

 

• And if pointing out the lack of blood, deviations from protocol, and misrepresentations of Pevytoe's testimony is enough to get someone called "borderline insane," then what are we even doing here? IMO the message coming from state defenders has always been clear: They don't want to discuss or examine the bone evidence in good faith because they don't want anyone to question the narrative of the murder or cremation. If you do, you will be attacked and pathologized. Just a tip: trying to re-frame legitimate inquiry or criticism as a symptom of delusion is not a subtle red herring. All it does is show the goal isn't good faith debate, it's preventing people from looking too closely at the record, because especially in this case, the state's own record makes the system appear rotten to the core.

 

Let's list some insane things the state and its defenders apparently have no problem with re the handling of the burn pit and bone evidence:

 

• Evidence of off property human cremation and bone distribution with a barrel on Manitowoc County land, concealed by mislabeling County land as Avery land.

• Buried photos and HRD alert of human evidence on County land compared against the no HRD alert or photo proof of human evidence on Avery land.

• A broken and fabricated chain of custody for barrels and bones, including mislabeling ownership of property yielding bones, lies about the date of bone collection, and omissions re when bone evidence containers were opened and resealed.

• Evidence of Teresa's cremated bones and clothing (and the smell of fuel) magically appearing in previously searched barrels (that were being secretly mishandled by police) around the same time a pile of Teresa's cremated bones and clothing magically appeared on the surface level of Steven's burn pit.

• Witnesses who originally mentioned no burn pit fire or explicitly denied seeing a burn pit fire being pressured to change their statement to include a burn pit fire only after Teresa's burnt bones were reportedly found in Steven's burn pit.

• The Manitowoc Coroner being threatened and intimidated from doing her job in the Avery case (and facing continued intimidation to the point she resigned) and the Calumet ME never actually examining Steven's burn pit, or clarifying why he declared Teresa dead without the DNA ID the state apparently required.

• And of course, the state failing to produce credible evidence that Steven's burn pit was the primary burn site, and as a result, misrepresenting and outright lying about their own expert's testimony re the tire wire to cover for their failure.

 

• And apparently, NONE OF THAT is a problem, but asking for credible undistorted evidence that Steven's burn pit was the primary burn site? That is "borderline insane"? Oh, and requesting a credible explanation for the lack of the victim's blood at the murder scene (that doesn't suffer from similar testimonial distortions) is also crazy? Okay wait ... repeatedly fabricating evidentiary support for a murder case is fine, but demanding credible evidentiary support is insane? Nah. Sorry guys, but this kind of insane double standard only makes sense if your goal is not truth or justice, but defending the state's shit investigation and obvious lies about the bones at any cost.

 

• The only reason to shut down legitimate criticisms of this case with lazy ad hominem attacks, instead of engaging with the actual facts, is to avoid discussing what the record actually shows. A good faith debate would require admitting, for example, the state's primary burn site claim rests on distortion, not proof. But apparently, that's asking too much for some. Possibly because once you accept the state's burn pit claim rests on distortion, not proof, that admission opens a much worse question: why was cremation evidence found on police controlled land and magically appearing in police controlled barrels that were being mishandled just before a pile of bones were found on the surface level of Steven's burn pit? It's much easier to lie and keep the focus on Steven, than admit it's possible police secretly moved Teresa's bones using a mishandled barrel.

 

• In the end, if the state couldn't prove Steven's burn pit was the primary burn site, and had to lie to make it seem like they did, then asking for credible, undistorted proof that they never provided isn't insane, it's the logical response to their failure to provide they evidence they claimed to have. If demanding credible undistorted proof re unproven case claims is "insane," but lying about witness testimony to fabricate proof for your claims is just good lawyering, then I guess words and logic don't mean anything, and state defenders are just making up reality as they go based on their own needs. IMO you forfeit the right to judge anyone else's sanity if your argument accepts the state using lies for proof, and then labels those asking for credible proof as crazy.

INTRO: Can Griesbach be Accurate for Once?

 

• I've done two recent posts on Griesbach's 2014 book "The Innocent Killer" in order to highlight multiple errors in Griesbach's retelling of the 2005 Halbach case. Among the errors Griesbach made was a detailed emotional account of Teresa's bones being found in a location they were never reported to be found (Steven's barrel) on date they weren't actually discovered (November 5).

 

• I've recently read Griesbach's 2016 book "Indefensible" for the first time. In it, Griesbach admits to making multiple errors in "The Innocent Killer", and admits he turned off his critical thinking skills after being emotionally swayed by Ken Kratz's press March 2006 conference.

 

• After admitting to his errors and biases, Griesbach commits to finding "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" with "as open and unbiased a mind as possible," committing to "follow[ing] the facts wherever they led." He very clearly sets his own standard - he would be accurate. What do we think? Will he violate his own set standard? Or honor it?

 

Griesbach Admits Error and Commits to Accuracy

 

On Page 82 of his 2016 book (Indefensible) Griesbach briefly addresses the issue of errors in his 2014 book (The Innocent Killer). Griesbach says we are all "susceptible to developing agendas or preconceived notions that blind us from the truth." Griesbach then admits after hearing Ken Kratz recount Brendan Dassey’s confession in graphic detail at his breaking news press conference, he had "fallen into the trap myself." Griesbach says he "turned off the critical thinking switch after that, even when [he] wrote Part 3 of The Innocent Killer. Why waste the time and effort? Steven Avery was obviously guilty." But Griesbach admits this approach was "sloppy" and led to him "miss[ing] a few important details and inaccurately stat[ing] a few of the facts." This led to him facing accusation of being involved in a cover up, or serving as PR for Manitowoc County. He said the accusation was "nonsense" but admitted "our minds are easily confused when we are overly confident about what we think we know." On Page 83, Griesbach commits to uncovering the truth and nothing but the truth:

 

> "Once we assume something to be true, by an unintended but skewed perspective from what we do for a living or stubborn habits of thinking, our false assumptions and opinions are difficult to dislodge. It is human nature—a weakness from which none of us are exempt—but it was completely at odds with what I was determined to accomplish: to once and for all find the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about the Avery case, so help me, God [...] This would be no easy journey, but not an insurmountable one, either, as long as I kept my wits about me and paid close attention to where I was going."

 

Griesbach says he went to bed that night determined to find the truth "with as open and unbiased a mind as possible." He planned to "revisit the investigation and prosecution of Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey from beginning to end and follow the facts wherever they led." Of course, that, like so much else Griesbach has said over the years, appears to be undeniably false.

 

Griesbach's Indefensible Inaccuracy

 

When discussing the bone evidence, Griesbach first notes Strang got Eisenberg to "Concede that the condition of Teresa’s bones could have resulted from being transported, either from the salvage yard to the crime lab by police or, theoretically, by someone who burned them elsewhere and then placed them where they were found." That is a somewhat muddled recounting of her testimony, but it's close enough - Eisenberg couldn't rule out another burn site. But then we come to a bombshell on Page 142! After claiming Eisenberg COULD NOT rule out that bones were planted, Griesbach says another witness COULD rule that out - DCI Special Agent Pevytoe - who Griesbach says told jurors the bones in tire wire meant Teresa's body had to have been burned with tires in that burn pit, and could not have been planted in the burn pit and among the wires after a separate cremation event elsewhere. Per Page 142 of Indefensible:

 

> "Rodney Pevytoe, with the Arson Bureau at the Wisconsin Department of Justice, on the other hand, investigated the burn pit and was almost certain the charred bone fragments had been burned in the pit behind Avery’s garage and not moved there from another location. He found wiring from what he believed were more than five steel-belted radial tires in the burn pit and some of the bone fragments were 'inside the wire, deeply inside of it in some cases . . . to the point where I actually had to, physically, pull apart the wire in order to get in there.' He told jurors that Halbach’s bones could not have been thrown on top of the wires afterward and had to have been burned with the tires the way they were found. The soil in the pit appeared consistent with having been exposed to oils from burning tires, he added, and several objects near the fire had evidence of charring and oxidation. He found a rake with wires from steel-belted tires in its teeth and surmised that it was used to stir the fire."

 

Of course, if the state had actually ruled out the possibility that bones were planted, that would make it much more likely that Steven was "obviously guilty." It would be hard to come to any other conclusion if the burn pit was firmly established as the primary burn site, like Griesbach suggested it was. But wait a minute ... Griesbach admits to having made errors before, and he doesn't actually quote Pevytoe's testimony as he did with others. Was Griesbach actually operating with open unbiased mind? Or was he being just as sloppy as before? Spoiler. He was just as if not MORE sloppy.

 

Pevytoe on cross examination:

 

Per TT:3/7:60, Pevytoe testified about the bones in tire wire, and whether or not that evidence suggested Teresa's bones couldn't have been planted. Pevytoe DOES NOT say what Griesbach says he did. He says the opposite:

 

> Q: And you can think of possibilities of how that might have happened, one would be that a body had been atop a -- an intact tire at the time that both were burned?

> A: That's one possibility.

> Q: That's one possibility. Another possibility would be that the tires already had been burned at some earlier time and a body was atop that layer? That's the second possibility?

> A: That's a possibility.

> Q: A third possibility would be that bone fragments, after the body was burned, not on top of the wires, bone fragments could have been moved into the wires or tossed into the wires, somehow disturbed, so that they were introduced into the wire mesh you have described?

> A: That's a possibility, yes.

> Q: And we probably could go on, but the reality is, you can't narrow down to any one of the possibilities we could identify?

> A: That's correct.

> Q: Neither could you assign a time frame within which the rusty steel wires that you saw were burned?

> A: That's correct.

> Q: You could not assign a time frame within which the bone fragments, or suspected bone fragments you saw, were burned?

> A: Correct.

 

In summary, Pevytoe DID NOT say bones couldn't have been planted or that Teresa's body had to have been burned with tires in that burn pit. Pevytoe specifically admitted bone planting was a possibility he could not rule out, and couldn't even determine if the bones and tires were burnt at the same time in the same fire. So after committing himself to accuracy, Griesbach badly misrepresented the record in a way that made the case against Steven Avery appear stronger than it actually was. A true Wisconsin prosecutor through and through.

 

The State's Compounding Credibility Problem

 

• Griesbach pledged to be accurate, keep his wits about him, and pay close attention to the facts ... but then actively presented false testimony as fact (to argue bones weren't planted) because the truth (bone planting wasn't ruled out) would have undermined his conclusion (that Steven is obviously guilty). This was a manipulation IMO. Griesbach is a former prosecutor who claims to have examined the record with the intent of not misstating the facts. He knows how to read testimony. He knows the difference between ruling out a possibility and explicitly refusing to do so. And he specifically pledged to avoid doing this shit again.

 

• Yes, I know. Griesbach isn't the only one whose relied on misrepresentations re the tire wire to falsely claim bones couldn't have been planted. Kratz commonly referenced the "bones in tire wire" as conclusive evidence that Steven's burn pit was the primary burn site. The same misrepresented claim made it into Convicting a Murderer, and was commonly exploited by SCAM's head researcher, BS Brenda. They all converge on the same lie / misrepresentation: that Pevytoe's testimony ruled out bone planting when it explicitly did not.

 

• The coordination of the same false claim across multiple actors is interesting, but argumentatively speaking, when they cannot produce evidence supporting their argument, and lie about testimony, they are admitting they do not have a legitimate argument to make. In this case, the state cannot credibly argue they ruled out bone planting, so they just lie to say they did. Why though? What is SO SCARY about the simple truth that bones could have been planted in Steven's burn pit that the state and its defenders will lie and misrepresent to avoid admitting it?

 

The Manitowoc County Gravel Pit

 

• If the state accepted the truth that it's possible bones were planted, the risk is people asking questions about that possibility and then realizing how consistently the evidence points in that direction ... The state's mishandling of barrels; the evolving scent dog tracks; the belated and unphotographed discovery of the surface level pile of burnt bones in Steven's burn pit; witnesses denying a recent burn pit fire (then being pressured to change their story); and of course, the concealed off property human cremation evidence on County land and magically appearing cremation evidence in barrels under LE control - all of it points to bones being planted in Steven's burn pit AFTER police took control of the ASY, and suggests bones were moved to the burn pit from police controlled land using a police controlled barrel.

 

• The previously searched Barrel #4 was removed from storage on November 7 and returned to the crime scene just as police were expecting to find Teresa's body off the ASY. After being returned, the barrel was lost in the chain of custody for 24 hours. No one knows where it was. No one knows who had access. No one knows what was done with it. But we do know that when Barrel #4 reappeared on November 8, it contained new burnt evidence: bone, rivets, paper, and wire. That new burnt evidence was suspiciously consistent with the magically appearing pile of ash, bone, and debris sitting on the surface level of Steven's burn pit discovered that same day. Years later, the bones from Barrel #4 (and Barrel #2) were quietly returned to Teresa's family for burial or cremation, along with bones recovered from the Manitowoc County Gravel Pit and Steven's burn pit.

 

• So Teresa's bones (or bones presented as belonging to Teresa) magically appeared in previously cleared and mishandled barrels at the same time more of her bones magically appeared on the surface of Steven's burn pit, which was around the same time they began covering up evidence of Teresa's cremation and bone distribution with a barrel on Manitowoc County land. In addition to Teresa's cremated bones being on County land, and magically appearing in barrels under LE control, there was also the magical appearance of fuel smells in previously searched barrels. That considered, it's no surprise state officials / defenders need to pretend there's no doubt about where Teresa was cremated, or who did it.

 

TLDR: Griesbach is not as credible as he likes to present himself. Even when he admits to making errors and committing to accuracy, he lets us down by spreading easily disprovable falsehoods about the state ruling out bone planting. In truth, the state's own experts conceded that bone planting was a possibility they couldn't rule out. The state knows if people accept the truth that it's possible the bones were planted, the answers to the questions of where the cremation actually occurred, and how bones may have been moved to Steven's burn pit, would overwhelmingly incriminate police.

 

• In the 2016 Indefensible, Griesbach admitted his 2014 book was sloppy. He admitted he turned off his critical thinking after Kratz's press conference. He admitted he made factual errors. Then he pledged to do better, to find "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" with an open and unbiased mind. He set his own standard. Then he immediately violated it by continuing his pattern of including egregious errors in his newest book.

 

• In Indefensible, Griesbach falsely claimed DCI Special Agent Pevytoe told jurors that Teresa's bones "could not have been thrown on top of the wires afterward and had to have been burned with the tires the way they were found." But trial transcripts reveal Pevytoe testified that bone planting was "a possibility" he could not rule out or even say was less likely than the alternative. IMO Griesbach cannot transform "bone planting is a possibility I can't rule out" into "bone planting could not have happened" and claim it was an innocent mistake, not after committing to avoiding making such mistakes and discovering the truth and nothing but the truth. It seems Griesbach did not care about the deception. He cared that it worked. He cared that readers walked away believing Steven was guilty. That is truly INDEFENSIBLE.

 

• Why do they keep making such lazy, easily disproven arguments? Because the truth is worse. If planting was possible, people would naturally ask where else the cremation might have happened and how the bones got to Steven's burn pit. The state tried to bury that answer by hiding cremation evidence on police controlled land, ignoring bones and fuel smells appearing in police controlled and mishandled barrels, and pretending the surface level pile of bone in Steven's burn pit was legitimate (despite witnesses claiming no recent fire, no HRD alert, and the burn pit contents matching the evidence that magically appeared in police controlled barrels). But that evidence pointed to police mishandling barrels, moving bones, and maybe something more, all in order to manufacture a case against Steven. That wasn't a conclusion state officials would want people entertaining. So instead of being honest, state officials / defenders lie and deflect to pretend there's no possibility of bone planting, and thus no doubt about where Teresa was actually burned. That's not the truth, however, and we must do better than Griesbach, Kratz and Brenda.

Search Youtube for "Kankakee Public Library Griesbach"

 

• I recently discovered a 2016 talk Griesbach did blasting Making a Murderer as deceptive. However, his posturing did little to quell questions about Teresa's brother and her "creepy" ex boyfriend. Griesbach was pressed about the pair's access of Teresa's cellular accounts on November 3, 2005.

• Instead of simply revealing Mike testified under oath HE DID NOT delete any messages, or that police failed to investigate what was actually going on with Teresa's voicemail at the time, Griesbach floated a theory that dodged the state's investigative failure and ignored Mike's testimony - Mike deleted voicemails to cover up something "that might have embarrassed" Teresa.

• IS THAT an example of honoring Teresa and her family? NO. This is yet another example of the state using Teresa and her family as cover for an investigation and trial that failed to follow leads or adequately address defense arguments about said failure. Apparently, by tossing Teresa's family under the bus, Griesbach, Kratz, Fallon and the rest don't feel like they have to own up to obvious investigative or prosecutorial oversights or shortcomings.

 

10 Point Trial Review: Making up usernames, guessing passwords, and deleting voicemails

 

1.) Shortly after MaM aired in 2015 many were particularly suspicious about the footage of Ryan (Teresa's ex) admitting he "made up a username that worked and guessed [Teresa's] password" for her online cellular account. Ryan claimed him and a friend (not Mike Halbach) figured that Teresa's password would probably "be something relating to her sisters. I believe -- I think it was their birthdays that got into it for us."

 

2.) Of course, it's total bullshit to suggest you could "make up a username that worked" and then "guess" a password for that made up username. People began to wonder, if Ryan lied about something this basic, what else did he lie about? Especially since, as MaM accurately documented, the defense theory was that before Ryan accessed Teresa's cellular account on November 3 (but after Teresa vanished) someone else accessed Teresa's cellular voicemail and deleted some of the messages.

 

3.) Buting tried to raise this issue, asking a Cingular Wireless store manager if their records were to show that VM messages were opened after Halloween on Teresa Halbach's phone, "that would mean that somebody had listened to those voice messages?" But here Kratz objected. After the jury was removed, Kratz claimed the defense was changing their theory to include Teresa being alive (and checking her own voicemail). Buting explained he didn't mean to imply this. His questions simply intended lay foundation for the introduction of "records that show that her voice mail was picked up at 8 a.m. on November 2nd and that she was not reported missing for 36 hours more."

 

4.) Kratz, apparently ready to throw the Halbach family under the bus, quickly came up with an explanation for this November 2 VM access - if it wasn't Teresa herself who accessed the voicemail, then it must have been accessed by Teresa's family. Of course, Mike and Karen had already testified they learned of Teresa's disappearance on Nov 3, but that didn't stop Kratz: "I would like to know how, whether her brother waiting 24 hours to report her missing, has anything to do with a fact in consequence, that is, whether Mr. Avery killed Teresa Halbach."

 

5.) Buting again explained: "I'm not saying it's her brother; I don't know who it is. But I do know that the police have had this report in their custody and it's another example of the police investigative bias by their failure to follow up on this. There's a lot of unanswered questions about what was happening in Teresa Halbach's life in those last few days [...] Who was accessing Teresa Halbach's phone mail on November 2nd, at 8 a.m.? Either she was alive and doing it herself, or somebody who had a password to her voice mail was doing it. It's got to be one or the two. And they knew Mr. Avery didn't have the password. And their theory is that he's already destroyed the phone! So, again, this is an investigative lead that could be critical, and that the prosecution and police have not followed up here."

 

6.) Eventually, the court directly asked Kratz: "Does the state know who accessed the voicemail?" In response Kratz, who had literally just suggested the Halbach family might have done so, appeared like a rather large deer caught in headlights. Instead of repeating his previous suggestion (that Mike lied under oath) Kratz sputtered out an answer about the state investigating the possibility that Teresa was alive on November 2. Buting (again) explained he was not changing his theory, and simply wanted to point out the police failed to investigate a lead that pointed away from Steven Avery. Willis didn't see the relevance, so he sided with Kratz and prevented Buting from following up on this line of inquiry.

 

7.) Later, Kratz called a Cingular Wireless network engineer to clarify although records confirmed voicemails were accessed AFTER Teresa was reported missing, unfortunately there was "no such data in the report" that allowed him to make a determination of WHEN Teresa's VM was accessed or who did it. He could only say someone (at sometime after Halloween) listened to and saved 10 messages (the earliest of which was from Halloween) and then listened to or skipped through but did not save 8 other even more recent voicemails (from Nov 2 & 3). Zimmerman claimed this post Halloween VM activity did not come from the mobile itself, and one's VM could be listened to from a landline: "it wouldn't necessarily have to be the owner or holder of that account." Kratz wanted to make clear - just because Teresa's voicemail was accessed after Halloween DOES NOT mean it was Teresa herself using her own phone.

 

8.) Buting didn't dispute anything the engineer said. His response was to once more establish they knew Teresa's VM was accessed by someone after Halloween, this access did not occur from the mobile itself (and thus the person had Teresa's password), and because the VM report didn't show a full VM, if people were getting a VM full message after Teresa vanished, then at least one message had to have been deleted before other more recent messages could come in. Zimmerman agreed, but tempered Buting's expectations by informing him "There's no way to tell from this record what date or time" messages were erased. Oddly, Kratz offered NO rebuttal to this testimony. He just let it hang there, out in the open, festering like an open wound.

 

9.) In a misguided attempt to dress up this mess, Kratz re-called Mike Halbach to the stand. Mike clarified for the jury he was able to "guess" Teresa's voicemail password on November 3, 2005, claiming, "it wasn't very difficult." He says hew knew her website password (from helping her design it) and that same password "was successful in getting into her voicemail." Mike said there were 18 messages (not a full VM) and the earliest new voice mail message was from Monday, which made him "extremely worried" because Teresa was known to check her voicemail multiple times per day. Mike said as he listened to the first half of the messages, he would "save them when [he] was done with them." But then, Mike explains, eventually it became clear the messages from after Halloween "didn't tell [him] anything about where Teresa was, so [he] did begin to skip them" without saving them.

 

10.) Buting's cross of Mike was very brief, asking him if he deleted any messages from Teresa's voicemail. Mike denied doing so, and that was it. NOTE: Despite admitting to accessing the voicemail, Mike did not go along with Kratz's suggestion he knew Teresa was missing on November 2, 2005. He also refused to say he deleted any messages when in Teresa's VM. This was a smart move by Mike given the present situation (he had already testified he learned Teresa was missing Nov 3 not Nov 2). There was NO REASON for Mike to lie on the stand (or imply he lied earlier) to patch a hole in Kratz's case. Further, Zimmerman effectively neutralized the claim that voicemails were erased on a specific date (we just know it was after Halloween). But in denying conducting any deletions, Mike's testimony did not adequately address the issue, leaving it open for Buting to exploit during closing arguments.

 

3 Point Summary of Closing Statements from Buting and Kratz

 

1.) During his closing Buting delicately tried to probe "the mysterious part of Teresa Halbach's life" which he says included multiple different social circles that "didn't intersect very much" evidenced by the fact she was "missing for four days before anyone reports it." Buting notes Teresa was supposed to attend a party on October 29, 2005, but "not one person has come forward to say I was with her Saturday night" at a party or anywhere else. Buting suggests there is "something is weird about that." Buting then pivots to the voicemails, presumably trying to link the deletions to something that happened with Teresa at a party no one wants to talk about.

 

2.) Buting asked the jury of the voicemail: "Why did the police not follow up on this?" He reminds the jury Zimmerman said, "Something on her voice mail was erased by somebody. And to do that, you would have to have her password." Buting made clear he was "not accusing the Halbachs of that at all" but suggested it might be "somebody else close to her that had her password and for some reason thought it necessary to erase a message." Before finishing, he prompts the jury to consider "what was so important on her voice mail, or perhaps so incriminating on her voice mail, that would necessitate somebody, close enough to her that has her password, erasing one or more messages?"

 

3.) Rather than argue messages were unintentionally deleted by Mike, or that Steven Avery somehow deleted the messages himself, Kratz tried to suggest Buting was being disrespectful to Teresa and her family by asking questions about the voicemails and Teresa's "lifestyle." Kratz postured for the jury: "I'm paraphrasing, but [Buting] said, what do we know about this party that Teresa was at on Saturday, or what do we know about some phone calls that she had gotten, or what do we know about her living arrangements. And when you suggest that that victim had some responsibility, or something to do with her own demise, you need to be held accountable for that." Of course, other than trying to shame Buting, Kratz did nothing to explain away Buting's arguments about the deletions. Kratz simply minimized any deleted messages as "some phone calls she had gotten." Yeah, phone calls she got around the time of her death that someone tried to conceal AFTER she went missing.

 

Griesbach publicly speculates Mike may have deleted messages to prevent "embarrassing" information from coming out about Teresa

 

1.) Mike Halbach (the only one who admitted having the access and opportunity) denied deleting any messages from Teresa's voicemail. However, Mike's testimony (which was featured in MaM) wherein he denied deleting voicemails was apparently NOT convincing enough for Griesbach to prevent him from speculating Mike did actually delete voicemails. In April 2016, Griesbach gave a talk at Kankakee Public Library. He spent the majority of his time lecturing the MaM filmmakers for what he described as their "agenda driven narrative." But Manitowoc County ADA Griesbach? He had no such agenda. I KID I KID! The agenda is obvious!

 

2.) Towards the very end of the video (still on YouTube) Griesbach took a few questions. One about fairness in media, one about the interrogations tactics on Brendan Dassey, and one final question about Teresa's brother and "creepy" ex boyfriend. Specifically, the audience member asked: "So -- they didn't go into it fully in the documentary, that's why I'm asking, but her brother and that creepy ex-boyfriend? I'll just put that out there." Griesbach says "Yeah?" and chuckles along with the audience. The woman continues, "when the brother and ex hacked into her accounts, like -- were they ever brought in and asked about it? Because that whole situation was a little weird!"

 

3.) Unusually for him, Griesbach didn't dispute what MaM said or argue they got the facts wrong. In fact, he went farther than MaM ever did when speculating about the deletions. Griesbach responded: "Well, the brother Mike Halbach, he kind of took on the role of the family spokesperson for the Halbachs. As to what they did? You know -- the um -- their statement was they went into her phone because they were trying to find out where she went, who she talked to, and some things seem to have been erased. And you can think, well that's awfully strange. Were they things that might have embarrassed her that they got rid of, you know? I don't know. I'm not privy to that information. But I can guarantee -- there is a line that you don't want to go past. I think -- I mean, Mike Halbach uh -- totally devastated by his sister's death. And the boyfriend? You know everyone's saying it could be this person, it could be that person -- it must have been the creepy brother in law who was going hunting. But there's nothing firm."

 

Kratz and Griesbach spent years accusing the defense and Making a Murderer of disrespecting Teresa Halbach, but they were the ones who publicly implied her own brother and family lied under oath, tampered with her voicemail, and deleted messages to hide something “embarrassing” about her

 

1.) While avoiding the question of whether Ryan and Mike were ever questioned by police about how they came to separately guess Teresa's passwords for her cellular accounts (they weren't) Griesbach speaks of lines he won't cross when it comes to the Halbach family. But apparently one line he will cross is speculating (contrary to Mike's sworn testimony) that he "got rid of" messages from Teresa's voicemail that may have "embarrassed her." Let me translate: It’s fine to accuse Mike of tampering with evidence and lying on the stand because he thought his dead sister had something embarrassing to hide. But we can absolutely NOT ask whether Mike was actually deleting incriminating evidence from the voicemail, rather than embarrassing evidence, because THAT would be rude. LOL WHAT. I don't really think Mike has anything to do with Teresa's disappearance, but Griesbach himself welcomes such questions by kicking down the door with his wild speculation.

 

2.) Next, Griesbach seems to assume deleted message would embarrass Teresa, but not that the same message might embarrass the caller who left it. If what the caller said was SO EMBARRASSING to Teresa it had to be deleted, why isn't Griesbach first considering (before tossing Mike and Teresa under the bus) whether the the caller deleted their own embarrassing message? Is it possible for someone to leave a message on Teresa's VM that would be embarrassing for her but not the caller? I suppose, but Griesbach doesn't seem to have thought these questions through. Which is odd, because as we know, Kratz and Griesbach have both commonly accused the defense and filmmakers of pushing fallacious arguments and even disrespecting Teresa's memory.

 

3.) Strang, Buting, Moira, and Ricciardi have never suggested Teresa's brother lied under oath, tampered with evidence, or deleted voicemails to hide something embarrassing about Teresa or the family. If they had said so at trial in MaM, state defenders would call it character assassination. Meanwhile, Kratz and Griesbach have repeatedly and publicly done so to cover for holes in the investigation, and state defenders likely won't say a word against them. The fact is: Kratz sat in open court and suggested Mike lied about when he learned Teresa was missing. And Griesbach stood before an audience and suggested (contrary to the record and without new evidence) that Mike deleted his own sister's voicemails to hide embarrassment.

 

4.) Worse, the required implication of Kratz and Griesbach's words is that Teresa's family was more worried about Teresa being embarrassed than they were about finding her alive by reporting her missing right away and handing over everything to police, embarrassment or not. That's what they are suggesting - The Halbach family lied about when they knew she was discovered to be missing, prioritized protecting the family's reputation over quickly finding Teresa, and then lied about it under oath. NOTHING the defense or filmmakers have said or implied about the Halbach family comes even close to this unfounded speculation by Griesbach.

 

5.) Of course, Griesbach was still employed by Manitowoc County when he gave this 2016 talk. In emails, he's admitted the County's credibility tanked after MaM, and he thought laying low was a mistake, so he spoke out. And since then we've seen over and over that Griesbach's loyalty is to the system, not Teresa or even the truth. He openly admits he didn't research the 2005 case thoroughly ... and then openly speculated Teresa's family was deceptive rather than admit he or police dropped the ball. A principled response from Griesbach would be something like: "I don't know what happened here because I haven't done the research. I do know Mike testified he deleted nothing, and the state never appropriately responded to the question of who actually accessed and deleted messages." Instead, Griesbach speculated (contrary to the record and without new evidence) the family obstructed justice and lied to cover up something embarrassing about Teresa, because apparently admitting state botched the investigation or prosecution was off the table.

 

TLDR: To patch a hole in the case, Kratz and Griesbach were willing to (1) imply Teresa’s brother lied under oath about when they learned Teresa was missing, and (2) speculate about Teresa having embarrassing secrets the family tried to conceal by deleting voicemails. The pair then wrap themselves in fake outrage about “respect for the victim” whenever anyone questioned their shit investigation.

 

• In summary: Kratz implied the Halbach family lied under oath about when they learned Teresa was missing. And Griesbach later speculated the family lied about deleting voicemails because Teresa had embarrassing secrets they needed to hide. So the same men who who contradict the record and wildly speculate to imply Teresa and her family lied under oath and had something embarrassing to hide, are also consistently accusing the defense and filmmakers of misrepresenting facts and disrespecting the Halbachs? That's backwards.

• At trial Buting repeatedly clarified he WAS NOT arguing messages were removed by Teresa's family, saying he didn't know WHO did it, but that evidence pointed away from Steven doing so. As for the filmmakers, they simply relayed what Buting's argument was, and (unlike Griesbach) actually portrayed what Mike testified to under oath without trying to twist or embellish it to say he lied. Neither the defense nor the filmmakers have ever suggested Mike lied under oath and deleted the voicemails to cover up something embarrassing about Teresa.

• As it stands, this low level gamesmanship only comes from state figures like Kratz and Griesbach. And this disrespectful shit always happens the moment they need to distract from exculpatory holes in their case - Oh those cremains we gave you for Teresa's burial were actually from Manitowoc County property? Well, don't worry, they weren't confirmed to belong to Teresa or even be human. Case closed! The state's favorite way to deflect criticism about poor or disrespectful police work is to just keep doing it: dress up their very public exploitation of her and her family (accusing them of deception and then suggesting they buried animal bones) as legitimate defenses, when there never has been and never will be any legitimate explanation for their ongoing, inexplicable behavior and speculations.