Steven Avery’s Motion for Reconsideration, filed Monday 23rd October was the latest development in a case that has recently shown signs of life.
Before Kathleen Zellner became Lead Counsel for Mr. Avery back in January of 2016 he had spent his time since re-incarceration in 2007 appealing pro se and understandably getting nowhere.
Whilst some argue that Zellner has not advanced Mr. Avery’s case herself in the near two years that she has been at the helm, this is clearly not the case. Since The Stipulation and Order for Independent Scientific Testing back in November of 2016 through To Mr. Avery’s most recent filing last week, the amount of ground covered has in fact been considerable. Somewhat perversely, Judge Angela Sutkiewicz’s denial of Mr. Avery’s motion for a new trial in its entirety has perhaps advanced the time-frame for discovery by Zellner and her team.
The latest rebuttals and revelations in Mr. Avery’s Motion for Reconsideration have not been subtle and understandably so. The brevity of Judge. Sutkiewicz’s denial warranted a firm reaction, and a firm reaction it duly received.
Questioned findings by both Dr. Christopher Palenik and Dr. Karl Reich were firmly rebuked. The tone of their rebuttals made for good reading too. Zellner has always carried a certain wit in her writings of motions and it appears that a degree of this has rubbed off on some of the experts she regularly uses. Reich’s exclamation that the Court’s comment, “unidentified by any statistical data” relating to his scientific findings as to the hood latch was not only ‘erroneous’ but ‘irrelevant’ is unlikely to be taken with any credulity. I look forward to Judge Sutkiewicz’s response. I only hope it reads more than six pages.
Whilst half of Mr. Avery’s Motion for Reconsideration was levied at addressing the Court’s findings and errors, the remaining half was set out for new evidence.
Bryan Dassey, eldest brother to Brendan was revealed to have made a prior statement to the Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ) back in early November of 2005, only a week after Miss Halbach’s last sighting. During the interview Mr. Dassey told investigators that his brother, Bobby had in fact told him that he had seen Miss Halbach leave the Avery Salvage Yard before he set off on a hunting trip on the 31st of October 2005.
Interestingly, the report (marked as exhibit F) dated 6th November 2005, was printed off on the 23rd of December of the same year either from Investigator Tom Fassbender’s computer or at least from his login as evidenced below.
Evidence that the Wisconsin DOJ and indeed Inspector Fassbender himself were aware that Bryan Dassey had made a statement with regard to Bobby Dassey’s confirmation of Miss Halbach’s leaving the Avery Salvage yard is clear. Even if this had not been the case, a Brady Violation would still have occurred. Brady does not require members of Law Enforcement or indeed the Prosecution to be aware of such evidence. The fact that they were aware, could possibly lead to accusations of misconduct and withholding of evidence.
Bryan’s brother Brendan, was interviewed at the same time but not by the Wisconsin DOJ. Brendan was interviewed by the Marinette County Sheriff’s Department whilst members of the Avery and Dassey family were spending time in Crivitz. In hindsight, it is illuminating to look back upon Mr. Brendan Dassey’s interview which was recorded in audio at the time. During the interview itself, Detective Carl Baldwin makes mention of one of Brendan’s brothers (in or near the car in which Brendan is being interviewed) and from Brendan’s response we know it not to be Bobby. Excluding Blaine Dassey, (another of Brendan’s brothers) for reasons as to him not being able to drive at the time of questioning, Bryan is the only brother it could possibly have been. Brendan’s recorded statement is linked below along with the transcribed version. Special thanks to ‘The Inspiring Dad’ and Redittor Whitevorpal for the transcription.
Along with the statement and affidavit by Bryan Dassey Avery’s Motion for Reconsideration also included a sworn affidavit by Denise Heitl. Mrs. Heitl acknowledges speaking to Miss. Halbach on the alleged day of her disappearance on 31st of October, stating that Halbach pulled over in her Toyota Rav4 to write down details of an appointment for Heitl to collect family portraits the following day at noon.
Further research by staff at BTR confirms previous telephone communication between Heitl and Halbach on both the 17th and 28th of October. Evidence of these communications can be found within copies of Miss. Halbach’s phone records submitted alongside Mr. Avery’s Motion for Post-Conviction Relief shown below.
Mrs. Heitl also stated in her affidavit that she visited Pearce Photography the following day, November 1st to collect her son’s portraits. Whilst Miss. Halbach was clearly not there to meet with Heitl, she did claim to have picked her photos up from a man she “took to be Teresa’s boss’. Whether or not Mr. Tom Pearce has been able to corroborate this statement is not yet known.
The reasoning behind the importance of Heitl’s affidavit relates to Mr. Ryan Hilegas’ possession of Halbach’s Day Planner and how he were able to come into contact with it seeing as it resided in Miss. Halbach’s Rav4.
Alongside both Denise Heitl and Bryan Dassey’s affidavits further new evidence to arise has come in the form of an eyewitness report by Mr. Kevin Rahmlow relating to the sighting of Miss. Halbach’s vehicle on both the 3rd and 4th at a turnoff on Highway 147 not far from the Avery Salvage Yard itself. We at BTR will be covering Rahmlow’s affidavit in a follow up article to this one alongside revelations as to the search history of the Dassey’s home computer located at their residence adjacent to that of Steven Avery’s.
Much has been made of Mr. Avery’s Attorney Kathleen Zellner’s findings both with her original Motion and further Motion for Reconsideration. Whilst certain claims have shocked it is worth noting that it is Judge Sutkiewicz’s and in turn the Trial Court’s obligation to accept the factual assertions laid out in Mr. Avery’s Motion as true.
The interpretation of Zellner’s filings have been open to debate since she first filed her Motion for Post-Conviction Scientific Testing back in August of 2016. What must be taken into consideration though is the tools at Zellner’s disposal that she wishes to use to first gain an Evidentiary Hearing, followed by a Re-Trial and then ultimately an exoneration for Mr. Avery.
By aiming to be able to establish grounds for Third Party involvement, Brady Violations, Ineffective Counsel and Perjured Counsel, Zellner is setting her stall wide.
The literal reading of sections of Mr. Avery’s filings have lead many to believe individuals cited are either partly or directly involved in the death of Miss. Halbach. Whilst we here at BTR do not know the identity of Halbach’s killer(s) we find it important to offer to the public that things are not always as they seem. Personally I’ve always seen this case through the analogy of peeling an onion. Because of this reasoning I’m sure that further layers are to be revealed before we get to the centre of this case.
Zellner is aiming for an Evidentiary Hearing. Once this is achieved, hold on for further twists and turns.
Show Comments (1)