Roadmaps
Opening statements on 12 February, 2007, in the trial of Steven Avery had a few surprises. I didn’t listen to the full opening statements from either side, but those portions I heard were informative.
The Special Prosecutor, Ken Kratz, presented a sympathy case for Teresa Halbach. I can certainly sympathize with the family, but that is not the point of a trial. The trial is to determine innocence or guilt based upon evidence. But, jurors can be emotional so these kinds of arguments are common.
Kratz stated that Avery’s blood was found in six locations inside the Halbach vehicle. The prior reports listed five. We do not know yet the size of the blood evidences are small drops or larger spots. Avery had a large healing cut around early November, 2005 which Kratz claimed to the be the source of the blood. But, there was apparently no attempt to examine the cut as evidence. According to the Dassey confession, Avery had scratched his finger and it was bleeding. This ham‑handed attempt by investigators to explain the blood is not used by Kratz.
Kratz talked about the key found in Avery’s trailer which fitted the ignition of the Halbach Toyota, but neglected the odd circumstances of its discovery. The further curiosity that no other evidence than Avery’s DNA was found on the key will need to be addressed.
Kratz also talked about bullet fragments found that had Halbach’s DNA. But these were discovered months after Avery’s arrest. What took so long? This is another area of the Dassey confession that was framed to explain the discovery of evidence.
Kratz also stated that Avery had done such things as place an alibi telephone call to avoid suspicion. He previously stated, incorrectly, that the ignition key was well hidden to avoid detection. But, that is a minute detail compared to the evidence that was left in the burn pit and the burn barrel. Maybe Kratz can make a case that Avery is a detail man but not a big picture guy.
I was surprised to hear that burned bone fragments were found in Barb Janda’s burn barrel and in the gravel pit next to the Avery property. After reviewing the Dassey confession though, I found a reference at the end that Avery had chopped up bones with a shovel and dumped a pail of bones in the gravel pit. So investigators were aware of the spread out nature of the burned bones but rather than investigate possibilities, they had Dassey explain that evidence away.
Was any attempt made to determine if the debris on the burned bones was consistent with various levels in the Avery burn pit? Why was it necessary to extract a confession from a special education student to deal with anomalous evidence?
The blood evidence in the Halbach vehicle is the strongest so far for the prosecution. Perhaps Kratz has something up his sleeve, but the inconsistencies and manipulations that appear in this investigation could very well undermine the blood.
Kratz requested that Dassey’s name be removed as a coconspirator and replaced with “another” instead. The Dassey confession would demonstrate manipulation by law enforcement officials which would be contrary to the prosecution. But, the confession was crafted to make the State’s case: a dilemma of large proportion.
Avery’s attorney, Dean Strang, presented evidence that the Manitowoc County Sheriff’s personnel were immediately wanting to know if Avery were arrested after the Toyota was found. It sounded as though they had planned to arrest him even before that discovery. There is no misunderstanding of the comments made by deputies.
Strang also avoided a simple “I was framed” defense with a more likely scenario. Law enforcement people eagerly grasped a person they wanted badly to be shown as a monster criminal. This would somehow justify the rush to judgment made that resulted in the previous false imprisonment of Avery. And, the need to justify and defend prior assumptions and actions is a driving force in human behavior. This leads to poor investigations and false convictions.
In 1997, the Court of Appeals reiterated that a statement made by Avery during his 1985 arrest was powerful evidence of his guilt.* That statement had a fifty percent chance of being right or wrong as a guess. These statements made by deputies were strong evidence of intent to arrest and charge Avery before any proper investigation was performed. Now that is powerful evidence.
* Like many other items in this Opinion (96‑3027) the inference was contrary to reality.
by Brian McCorkle
in category Steven Avery
