Investigators Peek at Steven Avery’s Digital Camera
It is almost a year since Teresa Halbach disappeared and since Steven Avery was arrested. Now authorities have discovered that Avery had a digital camera that was in the possession of his girlfriend.
This came up after interviewing Avery’s girlfriend in September. Apparently, there were family photos in the camera memory. Investigator Mark Wiegert stated that detectives will analyze all digital images recovered.
Wiegert used a claim from Wisconsin Department of Justice Special Agent James Holmes to obtain the warrant. Holmes’ statement was indirect in that he claimed it was not unusual for perpetrators to film their crimes.
Would a statement that it is common for perpetrators to record their crimes be correct? This is not consistent with the statement used on the warrant.
People have recorded their actions. The Teales (Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo) of Canada videotaped Karla killing her sister and both sexually assaulting two young girls who were subsequently murdered. Karla videotaped herself sexually assaulting a drugged teenage girl. Investigators overlooked the tapes of the two murder victims. Eventually, Bernardo’s attorney turned them over. Here, the authorities ignored the evidence that made Karla a murderer.
The horrific case of Leonard Lake and Charles Ng also produced videotapes showing these two torturing and killing. For some reason, the prosecution still found it necessary to spend ten million dollars and accumulate six tons of evidence.
But, there are many more that don’t make such a record. The reality is that it is not common for criminals to record their work. It is more common for governments to keep visual records of their homicidal conduct.
Would the warrant have been issued with a more straightforward claim that some people do record their work for later viewing? Why did the authorities belatedly believe this was important evidence? After all, it has been almost a year and the investigators moved fast to confiscate Avery’s computer. If investigators and Ken Kratz believed that the camera contained evidence then they should have been straightforward with the application for the warrant. Instead, they used a nonsense statement from a Department of Justice agent. Of course, a judge had to approve the warrant. Why don’t judges question more?
This points out the sloppy science that is too common in American forensics today. A state level criminal justice person makes a statement that is unchallenged although it is unprovable. Even the probable cause hearing for Avery had statements from prosecutor experts that were nebulous.
Investigators in the Avery case have already confiscated computers with no hint of finding anything. The claim for confiscating of
Even if the investigators had found S&M material that by itself means nothing. Between two and
What is the sudden importance of this digital camera? Is this case weak? The evidence known so far is troubling. The key found in Avery’s bedroom with Halbach’s DNA is problematical. The key was found in plain view, after several days of searching, by Manitowoc County detectives. With the conflict of interest issue, Manitowoc County personnel should not have been allowed in the search areas.
The Dassey confession is at odds with evidence collected so far. This confession appears to have been cooked as an attempt to explain a crime and badly cooked at that.
There is another concern with this latest revelation. Why are authorities still interrogating Avery’s girlfriend? Is this an attempt to implant information so she can suddenly remember things for the prosecution?
An alleged 2004 rape was handled this way. Ken Kratz spun off that part of his investigation to Brown County. This claim of rape against Avery was investigated, and the alleged victim stated no sexual contact had occurred and there was no physical evidence. Yet in 2006, Brown County investigators managed to claim that the rape had occurred, but no charges were filed. (See An Old Case Resurfaces for more information.)
People interrogated in these types of cases don’t consider having an attorney present to keep brainwashing out of the interview. Most people cannot afford the retainer and hourly fees needed to protect themselves. But, if this girlfriend and others, are being still being interrogated, they should do what they can to have a shield. The camera may be only a pretext for more interrogation.
by Brian McCorkle
in category Steven Avery
