Skip to content
Steven Avery & Brendan Dassey— Case Archive
Steven Averytrial-daytrial-dayThomas J. FallonKenneth R. KratzDean A. StrangThomas SturdivantLeslie EisenbergDonald SimleyKaren HalbachdirectcrossDay 13 - February 28, 2007Sturdivant described the burn-pit search and its documentation limits, Simley gave a qualified dental comparison, and Eisenberg testified about bone fragments and skull defects. Karen Halbach described family contact and concerns after Teresa missed work.
← Day 12Steven AveryDay 14 →

Day 13 - February 28, 2007

Burn-Pit Recovery, Dental Comparison, and Bone Examination

Judge Patrick L. Willis
9Proceedings
6Pages
4Witnesses
2,053Lines
Day 13 of 27
Appearing:
Thomas J. Fallon Kenneth R. Kratz Dean A. Strang Thomas Sturdivant Leslie Eisenberg Donald Simley Karen Halbach

Sturdivant described the burn-pit search and its documentation limits, Simley gave a qualified dental comparison, and Eisenberg testified about bone fragments and skull defects. Karen Halbach described family contact and concerns after Teresa missed work.

Full day summary

Before the jury entered, counsel disputed the meaning of Cingular voicemail records. Exhibit 372 was marked for identification, but the court did not decide whether it could be presented to the jury. Thomas Sturdivant described finding apparent bone fragments near Steven Avery's burn pit and sifting debris. On cross-examination, he said the first fragment he saw was on unburned grass about eight feet south of the pit. He acknowledged that investigators used no grid or controlled access path and took no close-up photographs of fragments in place. Forensic dentist Donald Simley compared recovered dental fragments with x-rays labeled for Teresa Halbach. He called the remains very consistent with those records, but not a positive identification, and would not assign a fire temperature or duration. Karen Halbach described regular contact with Teresa and Tom Pearce's call about Teresa missing work and having a full voicemail box. The judge declined to give a blanket instruction about prosecution questions assuming a murder date, directing counsel to object to specific questions as they arose. Leslie Eisenberg testified that fragments from behind Avery's garage included human bone from an adult female. She interpreted skull defects as characteristic of a gunshot or gunshots before burning and opined that the manner of death was homicidal violence. On cross-examination, she agreed she could not rule out gunshots after death. She identified human and nonhuman bone in Janda Burn Barrel No. 2 but could not confirm the human origin of some other fragments. Her cross-examination paused before she identified material associated with Exhibit 402.

1. Voicemail Records and Exhibit 372

Outside the jury's presence on Day 13, the parties disputed what Cingular records showed about voicemail access. Exhibit 372 was marked for identification, but the court did not decide whether it could be presented to the jury.

→
Procedural
Morning Discussion of Voicemail Records and Exhibit 372
22 lines

Counsel disputed the meaning of Teresa Halbach's voicemail records, and Exhibit 372 was marked for identification while the court's ruling remained reserved.

Highlights

Morning Discussion of Voicemail Records and Exhibit 372evidence eventAt Buting's request, the court agreed the records should be marked, and Exhibit 372 was marked for identification without a ruling permitting its presentation to the jury.

2. Thomas Sturdivant — Direct/Cross

Thomas Sturdivant described the discovery and recovery of suspected bone fragments near Steven Avery’s burn pit, then answered questions about how investigators collected and documented the material.

→
Direct
Thomas Sturdivant — Direct Thomas Sturdivant Thomas J. Fallon
183 lines

Sturdivant described finding apparent bone fragments near the burn pit, sifting debris with Crime Lab personnel, and preserving the scene; exhibits 363–371 and 373 were admitted.

Cross
Thomas Sturdivant — Cross Thomas Sturdivant Dean A. Strang
334 lines

Strang examined Sturdivant about where suspected bone fragments were found and the burn pit recovery's mapping, sifting, and photographic documentation.

Highlights

Thomas Sturdivant — Directtestimony highlightSturdivant described meeting Jason Jost near a flagged item behind Steven Avery's garage and seeing what he believed was a bone fragment, then noticing other apparent fragments near the burn pit.Thomas Sturdivant — CrossadmissionCross-examination established that the team used neither a stringed grid nor a controlled access path, and did not take close-up photographs of fragments in place before sifting.

3. Donald Simley — Direct/Cross

Forensic dentist Donald Simley said burned dental remains were very consistent with records labeled for Teresa Halbach, but not sufficient for a positive identification. On cross-examination, he declined to estimate the fire's temperature or duration.

→
Direct
Donald Simley — Direct Donald Simley Thomas J. Fallon
245 lines

Donald Simley found a Tooth No. 31 fragment very consistent with Teresa Halbach's dental x-rays, but declined to call it a positive identification.

Cross
Donald Simley — Cross Donald Simley Dean A. Strang
76 lines

Simley could not estimate the fire's temperature or duration from the dental remains, though he said the damage suggested extreme heat or prolonged exposure.

Highlights

Donald Simley — Directtestimony highlightSimley opined that the remains were very consistent with Teresa Halbach's dental x-rays, but declined to call the comparison a positive identification because of the limited remains and lack of crowns or fillings for comparison.Donald Simley — Direct“I'm kind of reluctant to use the world "positive". Uh, there were -- there were not a lot of remains that were recovered. Uh, there were no crowns that were critical, there were no dental fillings that I could compare.”— Donald SimleySimley explained why he would not describe his conclusion as a positive identification.

4. Karen Halbach — Direct

Karen Halbach testified about her last contact with Teresa, the report that Teresa had missed work, and receipts for Teresa's devices.

→
Direct
Karen Halbach — Direct Karen Halbach Kenneth R. Kratz
109 lines

Karen Halbach described Teresa's family routines, recounted a November 3 call expressing concern about her absence, and identified three records of Teresa's personal devices that the court admitted.

Highlights

Karen Halbach — Directtestimony highlightKaren recounted Tom Pearce's November 3 call: he was concerned that Teresa had missed work and that her cell-phone voicemail was full.

5. Hearing on Questions Presupposing Teresa Halbach’s Death and Date

Strang challenged questions that treated Teresa Halbach’s murder and an October 31 date as established. The judge directed counsel to raise any future objections when the questions were asked.

→
Procedural
Hearing on Prosecution Questions Presupposing Teresa Halbach’s Death and Date
11 lines

The defense challenged questions assuming Halbach was murdered on October 31; the judge directed counsel to raise future objections when the questions were asked.

6. Leslie Eisenberg — Direct/Cross (Part 1)

Leslie Eisenberg testified about bone fragments and skull defects, then acknowledged on cross-examination that she could not rule out shots fired after death.

→
Direct
Leslie Eisenberg — Direct Leslie Eisenberg Thomas J. Fallon
393 lines

Eisenberg identified burned remains as those of an adult female, described skull defects she considered characteristic of gunshot injury, and distinguished confirmed human bone from fragments of uncertain origin.

Cross
Leslie Eisenberg — Cross Leslie Eisenberg Dean A. Strang
680 lines

Eisenberg acknowledged limits on dating the skull defects and reconstructing the bone recovery, while confirming human bone in Janda Burn Barrel No. 2.

Highlights

Leslie Eisenberg — Directtestimony highlightDiscussing skull images and x-rays, Eisenberg said she could not determine the order of the two defects, believed they preceded the burning, and considered their appearance characteristic of a gunshot or gunshots.Leslie Eisenberg — DirectadmissionEisenberg described a calcined shaft fragment with cut and saw marks but could not confirm it was human; she also could not confirm the human origin of two suspected pelvic fragments and explained why she did not perform microscopic testing.Leslie Eisenberg — Crosstestimony highlightQuestioned about the skull defects, Eisenberg agreed that, without reconstructing the skull, she could not rule out gunshots after death. She agreed that postmortem gunshots would not have caused death and that her stated basis for homicidal violence, absent gunshots as a cause, was the burning or destruction of the bones.Leslie Eisenberg — Cross“I -- Unfortunately, I know little or nothing about how the recovery was undertaken.”— Leslie EisenbergDistinguishes her laboratory examination from firsthand knowledge of the recovery.Leslie Eisenberg — Crosstestimony highlightEisenberg confirmed human as well as nonhuman bone in Janda Burn Barrel No. 2. She described human fragments from several parts of the body, could not refit the barrel fragments, and said their general appearance resembled bones from behind Avery's garage.
← Day 12Steven AveryDay 14 →