I don't care what answers you think you have for these. I was not asking you.

These are questions that were not answered by the investigation. Indeed, it could have been anyone who had been harassing her, but that is also very unlikely. That you cannot accept that there are only a small handful of people that could have been harassing her - R.H. among them shows how biased you are towards this case. In any event, the point (which you miss entirely) is that this is one of the questions not answered by the investigation - and if you believe it is not an important question (and I would not be surprised if you believe it is not) you are either an idiot or you are being disingenuous.

I understand you have an opinion that it was okay to overlook all these, but I don't care about it. Law enforcement did not conduct this aspect of the investigation and the questions remain unanswered. You don't have these answers, so control yourself and stop pretending like you do.

I think it is important who was harassing her before she was murdered. I just don't understand why you think it was RH.

These are important points but once they find SA's blood in her car, why would they be concerned with anyone else? Especially someone SA has never met afaik.

How do you know RH didn't know she was going to be at SAs place? Because he said so?

The information that RH presented should not remove him in anyway as a suspect.

An ex-boyfriend that remained in contact with the victim and accesses her voicemail and deletes messages is a person who engaged in highly suspicious behavior. And, statistically, much more likely to have committed a crime of this nature. He should have not been allowed near the crime scene.

There are profile of murderers compiled by the FBI. Murderers are much more likely to be a known relative, romantically involved, or friends with the victim.

Of course, random murders occur. But given the overwhelming statistically nature, without any evidence, who most likely committed the crime, it would point to an ex-boyfriend. That does not mean he is guilty. And he still has the presumption of innocence that all are afforded.

Given that he had no alibi, couldn't even recall if it was morning, day or night when he went to her house, accessed her voicemail, deleted messages, couldn't even recall what password he used. They behavior would all necessitate that he should have been investigated more thoroughly.

Random murders are incredibly rare. Murderer by two people with one victim are even more rare. Murder by a suspect with an underage accomplice is exceedingly rare. SA is the only person released by innocent project that has ever been charged with a homicide.

The statistical data is so overwhelmingly titled towards an ex-boyfriend being the likely perpetrator of the crime. Not in this particular case. Any case. The police should have search warrants on the ex-BF immediately since he admitted to continue having a 'relationship' with the victim of a homicide and illegally accessing her phone. There are very strict laws against that behavior.

Did I actually hear Fraley Say" Your just asking Questions & thats what 9/11 truthers say, were just asking Questions"

Yup you heard it here 1st folks, in the USA#freedom Do Not Ask Questions.

Good post, Oski.
9 R H was in a fight with TH new BF on 29th Oct 2005.

I don't think this is about an "SA movement" at all. This is about a proper investigation and presenting evidence in an unbiased manner to a jury of peers. This is about using the power of statistical data compiled over many years that shows likely potential suspects. Those statistics are compiled and made readily available so authorities can determine effectively how to use their limited resources.

Given the statistics, arguing that SA/BD are both guilty is a conspiracy theory indeed and represents the minority position. I see the number of people believing they are both guilty declining over time.

So Fraley has admitted to......
A. Looking at 'Snuff movies'
B. Looking for facebook friends of the SA case & immersing himself into the discussion.
C. Joining a facebook group with TH friends after a request from them for being so supportive of the 'Guilty Verdict'
D. Making up complete Lies(or maybe not) about R.H. Movements before & after TH disappearance.
E. Knowing important info like 'R.H. Did not listen to or stalk TH Phone, Email or Personal living space.
F. That when we ask questions about the TH case that does not support his position he will try & fling MUD, by using 9/11 analogy's, Sandy Hook & Loose Change Doc's.( Disclaimer I do not know about Sandy Hook.)

Has been involved with THE LAW & may have served time.
What were you charge with again Fraley & what happened? ( I know you said so itt but forget).
Hmmm,

http://georgezipperer.blogspot.co.uk/

The call at 2.12pm went to GZ Voicemail, what is disputed is what was said in this voicemail.
So why not present it as evidence in the trial?

At 1:52 p.m. an incoming call went to Teresa's voicemail. This call was basically stricken from the record at trial and the printed record of the voicemail was altered before being admitted into evidence. Who was this caller? What is Kratz hiding?

Teresa called Zipperer at 2:12 p.m. and left a message. This is undisputed. What is disputed is what she actually said in the voicemail.

Right after that, at 2:13 p.m., she retrieved the voicemail left at 1:52 p.m. and did not delete it.

I believe she made the call to Zipperer and checked her voicemail when she first arrived at Avery's. Then she took the photo of the minivan parked in front of Janda's home. She knew this was the van because she had the description before going there. Avery came out to the minivan and paid her, and then he went back inside and she took off down the long driveway. When he came back outside he saw her signaling to go left onto Highway 147. It dawned on him that he had a loader he wanted to sell, so at 2:24 p.m. Avery dialed her cell to try to catch her before she headed down the road, but she didn't answer because he dialed using the *67 feature.

Three minutes later, at 2:27 p.m., Teresa answered an incoming call. This is the second incoming call of the day that she answered rather than letting go to voicemail. Dawn at AutoTrader testified that she was the one who called, but she told Wiegert on November 3rd that she left Teresa a voicemail on the afternoon of October 31st.

In all likelihood, the 2:27 p.m. call was from someone in the Zipperer home. Was this George, JoEllen, Bonnie or Jason returning Teresa's call from 15 minutes earlier? The called lasted 4 minutes and 45 seconds.

Sometime after the 2:27 p.m. call, Teresa set her phone to "Call Forwarding No Answer," which means her incoming calls would automatically go to voicemail.

About 10 minutes after first trying to call Teresa to see if she could come back for a second shot, at 2:35 p.m. Avery tried again using *67, but hung up before the call even registered with Teresa's phone: meaning, she didn't see that second call attempt. At this point maybe Avery decided he should just call AutoTrader and ask them to see if Teresa could come back for a second shot. Avery's actual cell phone bill was not admitted into evidence, so we don't know if this was the case.

At 2:41 p.m. an incoming call to Teresa automatically went to voicemail because CFNA had been activated. She never retrieved this voicemail.

Dawn told Wiegert on November 3rd that the 2:27 p.m. to Teresa could have been her because she left Teresa a voicemail that afternoon. However, Teresa answered the 2:27 p.m. incoming call and spoke to the caller for almost five minutes. The only voicemails left that afternoon were at 1:52 p.m. and 2:41 p.m. Coincidentally, both of these calls were not included on the summary exhibit created by Kratz of Teresa's cell activity. However, since Teresa did not delete these voicemails, they were included in a printout admitted into evidence. The printout for the 1:52 voicemail record was altered; the 2:41 voicemail record, although not altered, didn't have any data that would help identify the caller.

Teresa called two other people that morning, and both were located in Green Bay. That says to me that she may have planned to go to Green Bay for two other photo shoots, which would have been after Schmitz, if Schmitz is telling the truth, and after Avery. It seems virtually every witness called by Kratz at Avery's trial was coached to lie to backup the prosecution's timeline, and it seems like Avery is the the only one with a consistent story about his contact with Teresa that day and the time she arrived and departed.

If Teresa had planned to go to Green Bay at the end of her day, and if she had a shoot scheduled with at least one more customer, and that customer was in Green Bay but she never showed for that appointment, then why didn't a call from that customer, wondering where she was, register on her cell phone? If Teresa had an appointment in Green Bay for lets say 4 p.m., did she make that appointment? If she missed it, then wouldn't that person try calling her to see if she was still coming?

Teresa's phone last registered with a cell site at 2:41 p.m., an incoming call that went to voicemail, and that caller, who I believe was Dawn, left a 60-second voicemail. Teresa made no calls and answered no calls after that.

The next person to try calling her was Avery at 4:35 p.m., but by this time her phone was no longer registering with a cell site, which means it was powered off or the battery was dead or removed.

So something happened to Teresa between 2:41 p.m. and 4:35 p.m.

Teresa was killed:

1. On Zipperer's property;
2. On the road after leaving Zipperer's property, heading either toward Green Bay or home;
3. At another appointment after Zipperer, which could have been in Green Bay or some other place; or
4. At her photo studio in Green Bay if she went there to assemble her materials and overnight her package to AutoTrader.

Wiegert's report on his November 3rd activity is shady (trial exhibit 216, excerpt below). The report doesn't even indicate when he wrote it. Laura Schadrie of Cingular testified: "In our records, incoming calls are not shown... no incoming calls show on the records, just the outgoing calls." And she testified that Cingular doesn't print out the phone numbers of incoming calls. So Wiegert only had the phone numbers of the outgoing calls from Teresa's phone. And those calls only had the phone numbers, not the names of the callers. Wiegert wrote that the 11:43 a.m. outgoing call was to Steven Avery when that number belongs to Barb Janda. Also, see other notes on the image below on why Wiegert's report is part of the conspiracy to frame Avery.



Bobbie Dohrwardt of Cellcom testified that she prepared the spreadsheet for Avery's cell phone calls (day 12, page 153) but the who, what and why of using her "call log" rather than Avery's actual bill wasn't explained. This "call log" created on a spreadsheet (exhibit 359) was admitted into evidence rather than Avery's actual bill, which would have shown all his calls along with the cell sites used. Dorhrwardt's "call log" did not show any cell site information.

It is obvious why Avery's actual bill was not admitted into evidence: it would list calls that could destroy the prosecution's timeline. Also, it is important to note that the bill from Teresa's carrier, Cingular, shows phone numbers for her outgoing calls but not her incoming calls. If Cingular only provides the phone numbers for outgoing calls, how did Ken Kratz determine the identity of the incoming callers to Teresa's cell phone?
Kratz prepared a separate document where he listed names of incoming callers to Teresa's cell phone, but without some official documentation there is no way to confirm that the names are the actual callers. In other words, Kratz's concocted documents list names and call times for incoming calls but there is not evidence to back this up. He created these documents to support his timeline. And these documents should not have been presented to Dohrwardt when she testified: she doesn't know who made the incoming calls to Teresa, and for Kratz to ask her to tell the jury who made the calls by reading from his concocted documents is outrageous.

None of the documents used at trial are acceptable. Anything faxed can be altered. Only printouts of official documentation produced directly by the cell phone carriers should have been admitted into evidence.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...ertificate.pdf

Luckproof, Have you ever read the Death Certificate of TH?

Under ‘Body Found,’ they have ‘No’ checked, but under ‘Autopsy Performed,’ they check ‘Yes.’ The immediate cause of death is listed as ‘undetermined,’ but that gets crossed out and under manner of death, ‘homicide’ is checked. The certificate was issued on November 10, 2005, even though the Calumet County coroner only received the bone fragments on the 9th. They filled out their portion of the documents positively identifying the remains as Halbach’s on December 5, six weeks before the bones were positively identified on January 19. These dates are important because Steven Avery was charged with murder on November 9, and in order to do that, there must be proof of death. So, it seems like the paperwork on Halbach’s death certificate was pushed through improperly so charges could be laid. As usual, a quick glance into how things were done show a serious lack of professional procedure being followed and a rush to shoehorn Avery as the guilty party.

#JustaskingQ'sCos I live in a free country.

Oski...
Ryan Hillegas Created a Password for Teresa Halbach's Online Cingular Account Because She Hadn't Yet Setup One for Herself

Ryan didn't guess at Teresa's password to login to her Cingular account from her home computer, which was a laptop. He and her roommate, Scott, and another friend used Teresa's laptop to setup an online account for her with Cingular. She hadn't setup one for herself, so all they needed to setup her account was her cell number. And when they were prompted to create a password, Ryan did just that. He created one he thought she would have created for herself, "guessing" what she would have chosen. He used the wording that he "guessed at her password," when he should have explained that he was setting up her account for the first time because she hadn't done so herself, so he picked a password that he thought she would have chosen for herself.
Info R.H. was able to obtain:
When calls where made.
How long calls were.
Phone number of incoming and outgoing calls.
Cell tower location of incoming and outgoing calls.
Time and number of text messages.
Full account access, meaning he could upgrade or degrade cell plan hours, cell plan texting, passwords, everything.
Info he was not able to obtain:
Text message dialogue.
Voicemail recordings.
Any exact location she was in at any given time.
In order for R.H. to listen to her voicemail he would have had to reset the password and then call voicemail from another phone and then enter the password.

But make no mistake, because she had not set up an online user profile, R.H. was able to just set one up using her number and had full access to her account. Including billing information.

It was that easy.

So that’s what I think Ryan did. She hadn’t setup an online account. Ryan went to Cingular’s website and put her number in. He then created a profile and password, and bingo. He then had full access to her wireless account.
It would be very interesting if somehow someone could find out what date Teresa’s Cingular online profile was made!

Yup That was how P.I.'s & rouge reporters done it. It should also be noted that some company's did not even need all this as some providers used a simple factory reset code to access Voicemails, so after resetting using an online acc or the Phone you could access someone's voicemail too.
See News of the World Hacking Case as reference.

Sorry for the walls of text Oski, a little something from me to You.

through about 850 posts, its funny that the king moron of the thread so far is named "poor skills"

lol

To Revots33.......From Mr Moore, FBI.
NO MORE CALLS, WE HAVE A WINNER….
​
But by far, the most ignorant, naïve and unsophisticated comment made during the episode came from, of all people, Tom Fallon, Special Prosecutor, Wisconsin Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General, who uttered the inane statement;

“People who are innocent don’t confess.”
​
The mind boggles. Apparently, though Fallon apparently possesses the legal experience to achieve the position of Assistant Attorney General of the State of Wisconsin, he was (and possibly still is) unaware of one of the most commonly-accepted facts among actual investigators of serious crimes--innocent people confess. A lot.

Fallon must not peruse law journals, interact with experienced investigators, work complicated cases, speak to psychologists, watch the news—or crime shows, listen to the radio, read books, or accept the opinion of top experts in law enforcement. If he had done any of that, he would have known the truth: Innocent people frequently confess to crimes they did not commit.It is difficult for me to believe that Fallon is this naïve, and therefore part of me wonders whether he was intentionally lying to the jury. We may never know the truth of this matter.

More from Mr Moore, FBI.

INVESTIGATORS NOTES:
​
Anybody but me think it's weird that Sgt. Colburn is the deputy doing the transportation and courtroom duties with Brendan Dassey?
Neither Episode 8 or 9 ‘moved the ball’ as far as the guilt or innocence of Steven Avery is concerned. These episodes have centered on the apparent malfeasance of Ken Kratz and the incompetence of the investigators involved in the Avery investigation.
Still hasn’t provided enough information to prove Avery’s guilt or innocence.
The story given by Brendan Dassey is completely impossible, given the physical evidence found, not found, and required for it to be true. Absent other evidence to the contrary, I see no indication that Dassey was involved in any way in the disappearance or murder of Teresa Halbach.
Wiegert embarrassed himself on the stand. He made the (somewhat ignorant) point that Brendan Dassey and Steven Avery had five days to “clean up” the crime scene after the murder.
What evidence did the prosecution present that the two spent five days cleaning a crime scene, much less an hour? So why is that allowed as evidence in trial?
The blood evidence couldn’t be cleaned without a trace. Period. Sorry.
Brendan Dassey and Steven Avery are portrayed as sick opportunists unable to successfully kill the victim even after several attempts utilizing different means. However, the moment the murder has been consummated, the two, (one with an IQ of 69) instantly became criminal geniuses, adept in concealing the most minute, cellular-level DNA evidence of the murder throughout the house, the carpeting, the bedding and the concrete in the garage. (Oh, and then they leave a bullet out in the open.)
Kratz should have been forced to make up his mind and declare who he was prosecuting; bumbling opportunists or criminal masterminds. They can’t be both.


CLOSING THOUGHTS

Very excited about being able (in a week or so) to begin delving into information on the case I have not yet been privy to. Almost always in cases of wrongful conviction, the presented evidence is enough to convict. However, in wrongful convictions, we find that the evidence is unreliable at best, and planted at worst. The big task before me after finishing Episode 10 is to determine which evidence is valid and reasonable. I will not, even among ‘friends’ working together toward learning the truth, accept a piece of evidence as valid without knowing the pedigree of that evidence.
^^ This is gonna be gud!

After the conclusion of my next and last analysis of Making a Murderer. I will be initiating a new phase in the investigation; Interviewing witnesses! And you all will be witnesses! You have trial transcripts, you have read the statements of certain people, you have intimate knowledge on the cases, and some of you have areas in which you have specialized. When speaking with ‘witnesses,’ I was always searching for information, but I was also looking for a direction to take the investigation. So from all of you (if you have time) I will be asking you (not now, after Episode 10) to provide me with, or point me toward information you believe is relevant and important.
Excellent News.

That will give me a head-start on the deep-dive I’m about to begin after Episode 10. Frankly, I’m excited about where that will take us. And I look forward to working with you all as we move forward.

Better start prepping those Doc's Fraley, AngerPush & Revots33, Oh & Luckproof too if you are really interested in the case.

Okay so they are just very incompetent in a department run by incompetent people.

Not sure what difference it makes in terms of the investigation being flawed beyond gross negligence. If they would have acted competently and followed policies and procedures then there would not be these questions.

That's the problem though, they did so many things poorly, wrong or illogically that it should call into suspect everything they did.

I mean if he wants to argue that the best of his abilities are that of a highly incompetent police officer and investigator that is his choice but it does not change anything.

This is undoubtedly a problem in small jurisdictions as it regularly plagues larger jurisdictions. However in the case of the later you are much more likely to see it brought up / investigated. Small town and county police incompetence can survive for decades and decades and decades. When a few people wield such a high degree of power in a small, less affluent area, there is little to force change. For all we know the guy was not qualified to be a police officer or an investigator. We do have plenty of evidence he wasn't careful about how he worked. We know the department he worked for was a cluster for decades and continued to be so through this trial.

So if he is a completely incompetent twit it's okay and we can just leave people incarcerated?

Please stop stalking Theresa's family.

Not funny mark

Coroner who signs report:

A) He must be old. His license # is 00008.

The following is conjecture:

A) He is a nurse
B) He is not a medical doctor (MD)
C) There is no record of where he went to medical school
D) He may be a doctor of something else, but not medicine

A "medical" doctor would sign their name --- John Smith, MD.

His name does not appear in the Wisconsin Physician Look-Up.

I love how bones, blood, DNA, the car, the key, etc. were all obviously planted by corrupt police, and should be ignored... But a guy still being friends with his ex-gf? That's some shady s*** right there.