Testimony Notes 28 February 2007

Special Agent Tom Sturdivant, Wisconsin Department of Criminal Investigation, testified about being shown a bone while on search warrant assistance. The date of discovery was 8 November, 2005. The bone was located about eight feet south of the burn pit. He blamed Avery’s dog of interfering with the investigation with aggressive behavior, contrary to Bobby Dassey’s testimony that the dog was gentle.

Tom Fallon, for the prosecution, asked specifically about a hammer, trowel, and hacksaw blade section found in the pit. He also targeted a zipper and had Sturdivant read the monogram on the zipper tab but did not elaborate about the significance of the letters YKK. This is the YKK Group, manufacturers of zippers and other fasteners. Their Macon GA factory produces seven million zippers per day.

Sturdivant admitted to defense attorney Dean Strang that no documenting photographs had been taken. There was also no grid to allow precise mapping of bone and suspected bone locations. The material was removed from the pit by shovel and manually sifted to remove fragments from soil. The bone fragments were then placed loose in a box. There were two other locations where bones were collected, Janda barrel No. two, and the Southwest quarry. There were separate boxes for each location.

Two other bones associated with the burn pit were found outside its perimeter.

Steven Avery’s dog was removed by an animal control officer prior to burn pit sifting. Investigators have used this dog as an excuse for not examining the pit earlier although it did not prevent the discovery of the bones. A Manitowoc County Deputy had flagged or was guarding the bone found in the grass when Sturdivant arrived at the area.

The shoveling and sifting was not a good move. Documenting the placement of the bones before removal will allow a better anatomical reconstruction than placing loose bones in a box. Sturdivant attempted to justify this terrible forensic behavior by claiming that he had to get bones to the lab to see whether this was Halbach. But, a proper technique would not have stopped search activities and would have allowed better identification. Sturdivant admitted that the search for Halbach, and other activities could have proceeded if he had followed proper technique.

Thus, the evidentiary value of bones found in the quarry was destroyed. The bones found in the Janda burn barrel lost a great deal of evidentiary value. Sturdivant displayed an angry outburst during testimony.

A dentist who performs forensic identification, Dr. Don Simley II, testified that he examined teeth and jaw remains from the bones found in the burn pit. While he could not make a positive identification, Dr. Simley, said it was very close.

He also stated that he testifies about bite marks. My understanding of this was largely a discredited field. Dr. Michael Bowers, an odontologist and lawyer who served on the examination and credentialing committee of the American Board of Forensic Odontology, claimed that bite mark examiners falsely identified an innocent person as a suspect biter in 63.5 percent of the cases where this technique was used.

Teresa Halbach’s mother, Karen Halbach, testified briefly. I believe the prosecutor is spacing out testimony from the victim’s family generally for non evidence matters. Katie Halbach, younger sister of Teresa, testified earlier about a brand of clothing, which was evidentiary. She did a very good job. Perhaps the investigators can take a lesson in witness behavior from Ms. Halbach.

A forensic anthropologist, Leslie Eisenberg, testified about the bones found in various locations. She identified some as belonging to a young adult female. She gave an opinion that the remains had undergone extreme heat and burning. She also claimed that the bones were from a homicide victim. She could not definitively state the remains were Teresa Halbach.

I noted that she became a difficult witness when cross examined. She appeared to be precise for the prosecution. But, for the defense, at times she took her answers in a direction away from the question.

She admitted that the evidence gathering techniques was not what she would have expected, although it took some prodding and guiding to get this answer. She often demurred that the investigators were the ones who she would trust with that work.

She also agreed that the human bones found in the Janda burn barrel were not from the same section of the body. She will continue tomorrow.