7.Mark Wiegert — Direct/Cross
779 linesMR. KRATZ: Thank you. State will call Mark Wiegert to the stand.
INVESTIGATOR MARK WIEGERT, called as a witness herein, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
COURT CLERK: Please be seated. Please state your name and spell your last name for the record.
MARK WIEGERT: Mark Wiegert, W-i-e-g-e-r-t.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY ATTORNEY KRATZ:
MR. KRATZ: Mr. Wiegert, tell us how you are employed, please.
MARK WIEGERT: I'm an investigator with the Calumet County Sheriff's Department.
MR. KRATZ: How long have you been a law enforcement officer?
MARK WIEGERT: All total, about 15 years, 14 with the Calumet County Sheriff's Department.
MR. KRATZ: How long have you been an investigator?
MARK WIEGERT: Around five years, going on five years.
MR. KRATZ: And what are your general duties as a Calumet County investigator?
MARK WIEGERT: We investigate all types of crimes from, obviously the worst homicide, to burglaries, thefts, sexual assaults, various nature of things.
MR. KRATZ: So you have general investigative responsibilities?
MARK WIEGERT: I do.
MR. KRATZ: With that occupation and with those duties, sometime in early November of 2005, were you informed of a missing persons investigation?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, actually. On November 3rd our department received a call from the Halbach family indicating that they had some concerns about their daughter and that she possibly was missing. They did not know where she was. I did not take the original call, one of our road deputies did and then contacted me.
MR. KRATZ: Were you in charge of or what's known as the lead investigator in that missing persons investigation?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, I was the one who received the call from the road deputy. So at that point I was the lead investigator on it, correct.
MR. KRATZ: Now, we have heard a great deal of testimony about how that case developed thereafter. Let me just ask you, though, if you remember the early days of the missing persons investigation, that is, the 3rd and 4th of November?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, I do, in fact.
MR. KRATZ: Tell the jury, if you would, just the general areas of investigative responsibility of those first couple of days; in other words, what kinds of leads were you following up on?
MARK WIEGERT: Well, any time you get a missing person complaint, your first 24 to 48 hours are very important, as we all know from watching TV. But the first night when we initially got the phone call, I initially met with the road officer who had previously been at the Halbach residence or had telephoned them. I'm not clear if she had went there or telephoned them.
When she came in by me, she had already talked to the Halbach's briefly. And then we both went up to Teresa's residence where we met with Karen and Tom Halbach, which would be Teresa's parents. We also met with several of her friends who had shown up at that time, and also her roommate.
We did some brief interviews, basically, to find out where she might have gone, if there was any reasons, if there had been any depression, any medication issues, anything like that. We talked to the family. We talked to Mr. Bloedorn, who would be the roommate. We talked to a lot of friends who had arrived there.
We had also received a printout of some phone calls, correction, a phone bill that -- Teresa's phone bill actually. So we had taken that and tried to do some reverse directory things to find out who some phone calls had been made to. We also contacted Auto Trader because we knew that she had worked for Auto Trader. And they had given us some information, some appointments that she was supposed to have on the 31st.
So we started following up on those type of things on that Thursday night. We went as long as we could on Thursday night, which I think we worked till probably 11:30, maybe midnight or so. We decided that we would meet back first thing on Friday morning. I think we actually came in early, around 7:00 in the morning.
That morning we sat down, myself, two other investigators, and the sheriff, actually. We sat down and put together kind of what we knew at that point and decided that we would start doing some interviews?
MR. KRATZ: Let me just stop you there, Investigator, because I'm quite certain Mr. Strang would prefer I do this more by question and answer. The 4th, that is, the Friday, the 4th of November, did your missing persons investigation continue?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, it did.
MR. KRATZ: All right. And we have heard some of the details of that missing persons investigation, but so that I can move to the area of concern for why you are being called at this moment as a witness, the next day, that is, the 5th of November, were you informed of and, in fact, did you participate in a phone call from a Pam Sturm?
MARK WIEGERT: I did. You probably heard the phone call earlier, in testimony. But we had received a phone call at around 10:29 in the morning on that Saturday from Pam Sturm, who had indicated that she had located a vehicle matching the description of Teresa's vehicle.
MR. KRATZ: Now, so that this jury understands, prior to that phone call and, in fact, the prior 48 hours at least, had you been in contact with Manitowoc County authorities, specifically, a Detective Dave Remiker?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, among other people, I had been asking him to do some things for us. We were out doing some things, depending where the jurisdiction lied, that's correct.
MR. KRATZ: On the 5th, then, on the morning of the 5th, understanding that Ms Halbach -- or what was suspected to be Ms Halbach's vehicle, was found on the Avery salvage property itself, did you agree to meet Detective Remiker and other law enforcement officials out at that location?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, actually, after we had gotten a phone call, I had phoned Detective Remiker to let him know that we had just received information that Teresa's vehicle was possibly found.
So I immediately called Detective Remiker, obviously, because it's in Manitowoc County. I told Detective Remiker what I knew at that time and told him that he probably should get out there as soon as possible and that we would be on our way out there to assist him in any way we could.
MR. KRATZ: All right. Now, as we have heard for the last four weeks, investigative efforts continued from the 5th of November, really, up through mid February of this year, 2007; is that correct?
MARK WIEGERT: Absolutely, yes.
MR. KRATZ: And as you sit here today, Investigator Wiegert, if an investigative lead, or if there was something relevant in this case, would you act upon that, even during the trial?
MARK WIEGERT: I would, or I would have somebody else do it for me, yes.
MR. KRATZ: Let's talk about blood planting, all right? Were you aware, or let me ask it this way, when, if ever, were you first made aware that the defense, that is, somebody to my left, would have alleged or was going to allege that there was going to be a law enforcement officer involved in planting some evidence in this case?
MARK WIEGERT: Specifically, in December of '06, we had gotten word that Mr. Avery had indicated that the blood had been planted by two specific officers.
MR. KRATZ: All right. Let's -- Let's -- Let's back up a little bit. The planting of evidence and the planting of a specific blood vial, do you understand that to be two different issues?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, sir.
MR. KRATZ: All right. Let's break that into its -- its components then. When were you first informed that a vial of Steven Avery's blood existed anywhere within the confines of Manitowoc County?
MARK WIEGERT: Again, that would have been back in December of '06 is when I first was made aware of that.
MR. KRATZ: Now, before December of '06, were you asked to check into that very possibility?
MARK WIEGERT: Absolutely. We, as part of the investigation and, again, as you had indicated before, the defense had made some -- there were some comments made about planting issues. So we did the best we could at that time. We searched in all the places which you would logically think that there might be some DNA, blood, things like that.
I believe it was the April of '06, I had contacted Detective Remiker at Manitowoc County and said, this is what I'm hearing, what I need you to do is check your evidence at the sheriff's department, tell me, do you have any type of blood, DNA, things like that.
Detective Remiker reported back to me. He indicated that they had fingernail scrapings, hair samples, and DNA swabs, from Mr. Avery. And as you know, the DNA swabs have already been introduced here. He had indicated DNA swabs were still sealed by the Crime Lab.
MR. STRANG: This is hearsay, your Honor, objection.
MR. KRATZ: It's not -- If investigative bias is, in fact, still going to be part of the defense in this case, Judge, it is not for the truth of the matter, but for what this lead investigator did in response to that.
THE COURT: As I understand it, it's being offered to explain why the officer acted as he did, not because of the truth of the matter. He can testify as to his understanding of what the state of the facts were. At some point, I suppose that there may be more detail than is necessary but, generally, I will allow him to answer the question.
MR. KRATZ: (By Attorney Kratz)~ And I will just ask you, Investigator, if you can withhold saying what somebody else might have been said; in other words, quoting another officer, we would very much appreciate that. But what you learned, is what I'm interested in.
MARK WIEGERT: Sure.
MR. KRATZ: All right. Were you able, then, to determine, back in April of 2006, that Manitowoc County, that is, the law enforcement officials within Manitowoc County, did not, in fact, have Steven Avery's blood?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, they did not have Steven Avery's blood.
MR. KRATZ: Were you asked, and were you able to verify that any other DNA sample, like a buccal swab that we have heard about, the Q-tip swab, that they were in the possession of Manitowoc, were in a sealed, that is, in a non-contaminated, pristine, if you will, form?
MR. STRANG: This, again, it's not relevant if it's not for the truth. So there's hearsay and confrontation objections.
THE COURT: Well, at this point I'm going to sustain the objection on the ground the question is leading. For the purpose for which the Court understands it's being offered, I don't believe it's irrelevant.
MR. KRATZ: (By Attorney Kratz)~ All right. Could you tell me, regarding buccal swabs, what, if anything, you were able to determine?
MARK WIEGERT: I determined that there were buccal swabs at the custody of Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department, located in their evidence room, and that those buccal swabs were packaged and sealed.
MR. STRANG: Same objection.
THE COURT: I think the witness has to testify in terms of his understanding, rather than what he learned. I'm not sure, Mr. Strang, if that addresses your objection or not.
MR. STRANG: It would. That's right, as long as it's clear that he's relying on information given to him by others and we're just learning this to explain why Investigator Wiegert, then, acts on what others are telling him.
THE COURT: And I think taking into account the validity of Mr. Strang's objection, I will instruct the jury at this point, that the answers this witness is giving are relevant to the extent they deal with his motivation for acting as he did, not for the truth of any of the information which may have been passed on to him.
MR. KRATZ: Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT: Mr. Strang, does that address your concern?
MR. STRANG: Yes, for the moment it does. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Kratz, you may proceed.
MR. KRATZ: Thank you.
MR. KRATZ: (By Attorney Kratz)~ The same inquiry, or the same satisfaction to yourself and the prosecution team, were you asked to determine whether any DNA samples were in the custody of the Wisconsin State Crime Lab?
MARK WIEGERT: I was.
MR. KRATZ: And were you able -- were you able to make that determination?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, I did contact the State Crime Lab. And we actually spoke with, I believe it was Sherry Culhane, and she informed me and indicated to me that they did not have any blood from Steven Avery, at the Crime Lab.
MR. KRATZ: All right. Satisfying yourself that law enforcement didn't have any blood, that the Crime Lab didn't have any blood -- By the way, did you inquire, or make any other inquiries, about Steven Avery's blood, of anyone?
MARK WIEGERT: I don't know that I made any other inquiries at that point.
MR. KRATZ: Okay. Let me ask you, Investigator Wiegert, at that point in the investigation, this is April of '06, or the spring of '06, who were the law enforcement agencies heading up or leading this investigation?
MARK WIEGERT: The Calumet County Sheriff's Department and the Department of Criminal Investigation.
MR. KRATZ: At that time, in the spring of '06, did you have any reason to believe that there was a vial of Steven Avery's blood, or any biological material, within the Clerk of Court's Office in Manitowoc County?
MARK WIEGERT: No, I would have no way of knowing that. I don't routinely check Clerk of Court's Offices for substances such as that. I mean, to my knowledge, at that time, it would be stored somewhere in another facility, like a law enforcement facility, for several reasons. It's biological hazard, number one. I wouldn't think that would just be where it was.
MR. KRATZ: Then, back to my original question, when was the first time that you were informed that the Manitowoc County Clerk of Court's Office had a vial of blood in their possession or control?
MARK WIEGERT: On or about December 13th or 14th of 2006.
MR. KRATZ: All right. After being informed of the existence of a blood vial in Manitowoc County, in the Clerk of Court's Office, were you asked to investigate the facts and circumstances regarding that blood vial?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, we were.
MR. KRATZ: Were you asked, Investigator Wiegert, and, in fact, did you determine who had access to the Manitowoc Clerk of Court's Office, including who had the keys, who had the codes to the entrance doors; generally, in fact, not just generally but, specifically, who had access to that particular file?
MR. STRANG: This goes well beyond any relevant purpose and is both -- presents both hearsay and confrontational problems here. There would be no other reason for offering this other than to suggest the truth.
THE COURT: Mr. Kratz?
MR. KRATZ: I may agree, that's not relevant, at least after yesterday, but if this is still going to be part of the defense, this is clearly relevant to the facts in this particular case.
THE COURT: I'm going to sustain the objection. I don't know that this witness is the one to answer that. I'm going to sustain the objection.
MR. KRATZ: (By Attorney Kratz)~ All right. Let me jump ahead, then, Investigator Wiegert. Sometime in mid December, were you, for the first time, invited to actually view this vial of blood?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, on December, I want to say 14th, I went to the courthouse with people from the prosecution side and several members of the defense. And that was the first time I viewed that blood.
MR. KRATZ: And we saw a videotape, I don't know if it was yesterday or the day before, that the defense had showed, did that accurately depict the opening of that particular packaging and the first time that you saw that vial?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, it did.
MR. KRATZ: Investigator Wiegert, sometime thereafter, were you asked by the prosecution team, after a court order had been issued, to actually package up, or take that vial of blood and do something with it?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, pursuant to the Court's order, I went to the Clerk's Office in Manitowoc, at the courthouse. I believe that was on February 5th, my recollection, of this year. I was -- I then provided the Clerk with the copy that the Court had provided me, for release of the blood vial. I took the blood vial into my possession and transported it back here to Calumet County Sheriff's Department.
MR. KRATZ: Now, February 5th of this year, just to put this in perspective, is the same time that this trial was starting; is that your understanding?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. KRATZ: All right. Investigator Wiegert, as you are putting your gloves on, you can do two things at once, I'm going to have you look at the large screen, Exhibit 471, which has already been admitted in this case, is a photograph; do you recognize that?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, I do.
MR. KRATZ: What is that?
MARK WIEGERT: That's a picture that was taken, I can't say when the picture was taken, probably one of the ones that I took on -- in December, actually, when we first opened that blood vial package, would be my guess.
MR. KRATZ: When you saw that blood vial, as was shown in the videotape, did the 10 year old vial of blood still appear to be in non-coagulated, or in liquid form?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, we actually -- as you seen in the video yesterday, we actually took the styrofoam box and moved it back and forth and you could see the blood actually move in there.
MR. KRATZ: All right. Moving on to February 5th, tell the jury what you did?
MARK WIEGERT: On February 5th, when I picked the blood vial up, and I transported it back here to the Sheriff's Department, I took it down to our evidence room where I un-packaged it from that package. And I took the vial out and the vial was placed, actually, into this red container that you see right here. Inside this red container there is another glass container. I first put it inside that glass container and then it went inside this red container. Then it was sealed, evidence taped by me, and initialed by me.
MR. KRATZ: Now, Dr. LeBeau, I think, testified about that particular exhibit and that that's a kind of packaging that you, even in law enforcement, don't typically see, is that right?
MARK WIEGERT: No, this was actually provided to us by the FBI, the red packaging here.
MR. KRATZ: All right.
THE COURT: Mr. Kratz, I think the exhibit number should be placed on the record.
MR. KRATZ: Right.
MR. KRATZ: (By Attorney Kratz)~ Is that Exhibit 478?
MARK WIEGERT: It is.
MR. KRATZ: Were you informed then, Investigator, that at some point, at least at some point after February 5th, that the FBI, the federal law enforcement investigative body, was going to attempt to do some analysis of that vial of blood?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, if I could just step back a second. On February 5th, I was the one that turned this over to the FBI. And then we did learn that they would be attempting to do some testing for us.
MR. KRATZ: All right. And you were in court yesterday, you heard the results of that testing; is that right?
MARK WIEGERT: Absolutely, I did.
MR. KRATZ: Now, not withstanding the possibility of getting some results from the FBI, had you and Investigator Fassbender, as lead investigators, performed another or a parallel investigation as to the allegations of planting, specifically, by Lieutenant Lenk and Sergeant Colborn?
MARK WIEGERT: Absolutely. I mean, I felt -- I can't speak for Mr. Fassbender, but I felt it was our duty, that we had to do everything we could to find out, one way or another, whether it was true or it wasn't true. And we did do that.
MR. KRATZ: And, yesterday, there was a scientific opinion that was offered, without going into the investigative efforts that you did, was that investigation completed, your parallel investigation?
MARK WIEGERT: To the best that we could, yes.
MR. KRATZ: You said that you packaged that vial yourself and you provided it to the FBI. Could you just explain, just briefly, and I'm almost finished with you, Investigator, but just briefly, the transmittal protocol, that is, how evidence gets from you, in this case, to the FBI?
MARK WIEGERT: Sure. What we do is we contact the most local FBI office. In our case here, that is the Green Bay office. And in order for something to be submitted to their lab, it has got to go through the local office.
Things actually go from the local office, in this case, Green Bay. They have to go from there to Milwaukee, and there they are -- put their own labels on, it's packaged and things like that in Milwaukee, and then it goes out to Virginia. That's the only way we're allowed to submit things, through that chain.
So what I did is, I had turned it over to an agent by the name of Agent Hammond, from Green Bay. And then I believe it went to Milwaukee from there.
MR. KRATZ: For this purpose, Judge, that is all the questions I have of Mr. Wiegert. Thank you.
THE COURT: Very well, Mr. Strang, are you going to be doing the cross?
MR. STRANG: I am.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ATTORNEY STRANG:
MR. STRANG: Judge, I just have a couple questions. I thought -- I don't usually like to do this, but --
MARK WIEGERT: Do I keep these on?
MR. STRANG: I'm not going to tell a guy how to dress, do as you please. Usually I would start at my own place, but I just thought, I was curious with the last couple questions you were asked. Are you saying that under the rules of the FBI you weren't allowed to send that directly to the lab?
MARK WIEGERT: That's my understanding, that I can't send it directly to Virginia.
MR. STRANG: Okay. So you had to give it to an FBI agent in Green Bay?
MARK WIEGERT: Who was the closest agent, correct.
MR. STRANG: Right.
MARK WIEGERT: To transport down.
MR. STRANG: Closest, what they call a resident office?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: And then he wasn't allowed to send it to the lab, he had to send it to the Milwaukee office --
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: -- of the FBI?
MARK WIEGERT: I'm sorry. My understanding is that they do the packaging in Milwaukee and things go out from there.
MR. STRANG: All right.
MARK WIEGERT: So Milwaukee is probably the regional office.
MR. STRANG: Okay. So the FBI Green Bay sent it to FBI Milwaukee and they repackaged it in some fashion then. Were the Milwaukee people allowed to send it to the lab?
MARK WIEGERT: It did go to the lab from Milwaukee.
MR. STRANG: Any idea how long this all took?
MARK WIEGERT: I can tell you it made it to Milwaukee the same day I turned it over to the agent. From there, I have no knowledge of that.
MR. STRANG: You prevailed on the FBI agent in Green Bay to drive it right down to Milwaukee?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, sir.
MR. STRANG: All right. Let's go back, because you are the initial lead investigator, as you said, in this case, obviously, and then sort of split your duties as lead investigator with Mr. Fassbender?
MARK WIEGERT: That's correct.
MR. STRANG: And is it -- If we call you a case agent on this case, is that a term you are familiar with?
MARK WIEGERT: You can call me that, sure.
MR. STRANG: Okay. I mean, is that a term you use?
MARK WIEGERT: Generally not a term that we use.
MR. STRANG: Lead investigator?
MARK WIEGERT: That's probably.
MR. STRANG: That works for me, so.
MARK WIEGERT: Sure.
MR. STRANG: So the two of you shared those duties because this was a larger investigation?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, sir.
MR. STRANG: But you had it first, in the sense that the person who took the call, she wasn't in the business of investigation. She wasn't in your Investigation Bureau, so she quite properly referred it to an investigator?
MARK WIEGERT: That was correct, she was a road officer.
MR. STRANG: You actually went out to Teresa Halbach's home that very first evening, I don't know, I don't remember now, I'm not sure it really matters, but 6, 6:30, something like that?
MARK WIEGERT: Somewhere in that area, yes.
MR. STRANG: Met with Halbach family members, as you said, and friends?
MARK WIEGERT: That's correct.
MR. STRANG: Now, this was, at that point, a missing persons investigation and a missing persons investigation, I guess, only at that point.
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: You were able to, I guess not you personally, but you watched others gain access to the Cingular account on the website that we have heard about?
MARK WIEGERT: Don't know that I watched them, I know I was provided with a printout that they had gotten off the computer.
MR. STRANG: Okay. All right. Did you personally try to call Teresa's cellphone?
MARK WIEGERT: I did, as well as I believe the initial officer had tried calling before me. But, yes, I did.
MR. STRANG: Okay. And may not have been the only officer who did that?
MARK WIEGERT: Probably not.
MR. STRANG: Did you get a message that Ms Halbach's voice mailbox was full when you called?
MARK WIEGERT: Trying to recall the exact -- I got the impression it was full. And I don't remember what it says, but I had the impression that it was full, yes. I don't exactly remember the verbiage that it says --
MR. STRANG: Right. Okay.
MARK WIEGERT: -- but, yeah.
MR. STRANG: The understanding you came away with was that it was -- the mailbox was full?
MARK WIEGERT: I believe so, yes.
MR. STRANG: Did you -- Do you think you made that call the evening of November 3, that first night?
MARK WIEGERT: I think I did, to the best of my recollection.
MR. STRANG: You didn't listen to any voice mail messages?
MARK WIEGERT: I did not.
MR. STRANG: You certainly didn't erase any voice mail messages?
MARK WIEGERT: I did not.
MR. STRANG: Okay. Now, what -- what did happen is, while you were still at Ms Halbach's home, you got a call from Lieutenant James Lenk?
MARK WIEGERT: Eventually I did, however, there were some things that happened before that. I had made the initial call to Manitowoc County.
MR. STRANG: Talked with Sergeant Colborn and Detective Remiker, I'm not sure which order?
MARK WIEGERT: Initially, I called dispatch. They had Sergeant Colborn call me back. And then later that evening, I believe, I probably spoke with Remiker and Lenk, later that evening.
MR. STRANG: Okay. And it was Lenk who called you?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, he did call me.
MR. STRANG: You -- You know, just sort of get this out of the way. You, at that point, had no idea that Mr. Lenk and Mr. Colborn had had their depositions taken in the civil lawsuit that Steven Avery had brought?
MARK WIEGERT: No, I would have no reason to know that.
MR. STRANG: And you didn't learn that until some time last summer, summer of '06 probably?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. STRANG: Now, one of the things you were doing that first night, November 3, was trying to, you know, get a handle on who were the close people in Ms Halbach's life, so to speak?
MARK WIEGERT: Well, among other things, we wanted to know, obviously, who her friends were and what kind of family she had. Because I didn't know Teresa --
MR. STRANG: Sure.
MARK WIEGERT: -- at that time. Didn't know her family at the time. So I wanted to know who her family was, who her friends were, among other things, like where she might have went, you know, follow the last 24 hours, something like that.
MR. STRANG: Exactly, who would be likely to hear from her frequently, what her circle of friends was, what her business circle was, that kind of --
MARK WIEGERT: That's correct.
MR. STRANG: -- thing? And what you try to do in a missing persons investigation is figure out where we think, you know, as best as we can find out, where do we think this person was last seen and last heard from and then let's try to work from there?
MARK WIEGERT: That's true. It's more of a process of elimination --
MR. STRANG: Sure.
MARK WIEGERT: -- than anything, at that point when you have some -- You're a broad perspective at this time and you hope to narrow that down.
MR. STRANG: Okay. And, so, in addition to family members and friends, you learned something about her business life, if you will, Tom Pearce and the photography business?
MARK WIEGERT: Yeah, I had learned -- I'm not sure when I learned it, but I learned, eventually, that she had a business up in Green Bay, a photography business in Green Bay.
MR. STRANG: And then the Auto Trader freelance work --
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: -- or part time commission work that she did?
MARK WIEGERT: Right.
MR. STRANG: Okay. And, then, you know, sort of her social circle, which would include, obviously, family members, with a close family like this, and also friends who aren't family members.
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: She had a roommate, Scott Bloedorn?
MARK WIEGERT: That's correct.
MR. STRANG: You were interested in learning whether these were just people sharing a house or whether there was some romantic linkage between the two of them?
MARK WIEGERT: I wouldn't say initially. Initially, we were concerned about where she might be. It wasn't my concern, initially.
MR. STRANG: Sure. But, I don't mean necessarily initially, but sort of in the early steps, one would try to ascertain, does this person have a boyfriend or, you know, who is close --
MARK WIEGERT: Sure.
MR. STRANG: -- to her?
MARK WIEGERT: Absolutely.
MR. STRANG: So that -- that was something you pursued a little bit as to Mr. Bloedorn, what's the nature of his relationship as a roommate?
MARK WIEGERT: Sure.
MR. STRANG: You learned about another fellow named Bradley Czech, that first night, I think that's C-z-e-c-h? Is that --
MARK WIEGERT: I believe that's correct.
MR. STRANG: Okay. He was an acquaintance of Ms Halbach, you learned that evening?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: Pursued whether there was a romantic --
MARK WIEGERT: I guess I have to step back for a second. I don't think it was that evening, I think it was the next day.
MR. STRANG: Okay. Fair enough.
MARK WIEGERT: My recollection.
MR. STRANG: You know, and I'm -- if it's easier for you, we can work with November 3 and November 4 together?
MARK WIEGERT: That's fine.
MR. STRANG: Okay. Early on?
MARK WIEGERT: Sure.
MR. STRANG: While this was a missing persons investigation. So you learned about Mr. Czech?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: Okay. And were you able to, you know, learn what his connection was to Ms Halbach, at least in the early stages of this investigation?
MARK WIEGERT: I determined that it was both a business and a personal relationship.
MR. STRANG: All right. And did you take any steps to pursue that -- that aspect of the investigation further?
MARK WIEGERT: I spoke with Mr. Czech, if that's what you are asking, yes.
MR. STRANG: Okay. And that was early on?
MARK WIEGERT: I believe that was on Friday, the 4th.
MR. STRANG: Would that have been the last time, to your knowledge as the case agent, that an interview was pursued with Mr. Czech?
MARK WIEGERT: You know, without reviewing 1,080 some pages of just my reports, by mine I mean Calumet County reports, I'm not willing to say that.
MR. STRANG: And that's just --
MARK WIEGERT: That's just Calumet's reports. There's probably 6, 7, 800 of DCI reports, so I haven't memorized them all.
MR. STRANG: No, neither have I. And let's sort of pause on that, and just to give this jury some understanding of, you know, of the basic police work here. When you say your reports, the way the Calumet County Sheriff's Office works is that you folks really just sort of run a continuous flow of reports, with one reporting officer adding on, essentially, to the foot of the previous reporting officer's report?
MARK WIEGERT: No, I wouldn't classify it that way. I would say numerically we do. I mean, if I have five pages of report and another detective comes in on the same case, it may start at number six --
MR. STRANG: Right.
MARK WIEGERT: -- but his is not included in my report. His is a separate report, obviously.
MR. STRANG: Yes, that's exactly right, but the page number is sequential?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: So, when you say the Calumet County Sheriff's Office report here is about 1,080 pages, that's -- that's what it is, pretty close to that, right up today?
MARK WIEGERT: Yeah, I would say it's in that range.
MR. STRANG: And some of that you have actually authored, some of that others have authored.
MARK WIEGERT: Certainly.
MR. STRANG: But it just runs sequentially?
MARK WIEGERT: Numbers, yes.
MR. STRANG: Right. And so there's just a huge amount of preparation of basic police reports that's gone on in this case, in your department?
MARK WIEGERT: Absolutely.
MR. STRANG: You have heard me cross-examine others about the purpose of police reports and, you know --
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: -- the training that goes into that. And I'm not going to repeat that, but that's what you folks have done?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: And, then, the DCI, Mr. Fassbender and others working for the DCI, have done sort of a parallel reporting process, correct?
MARK WIEGERT: They have done their own reporting process. I guess you could call it parallel, sure.
MR. STRANG: Right. And they number their reports in sequence rather than paginating them in sequence. But it's the same idea that it's -- it's a whole run of hundreds of pages of reports?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: And so, at least as you sit here today, I guess what you can say is that Bradley Czech, you sort of talked to him and sort of set him aside pretty early on in the investigation, so to speak?
MARK WIEGERT: Well, if I could preface that answer, we talked to a lot of friends and acquaintances in a two day period, among other investigative things we were doing.
MR. STRANG: Right.
MARK WIEGERT: Doesn't mean they were included, excluded, at any point. It just means we got basic information and we could always come back to those people if we needed to do that, for whatever reason.
MR. STRANG: Right. Basic information, name, date of birth, address, phone number, how do we find this person?
MARK WIEGERT: Probably a little more than that. Have you seen Teresa? When was the --
MR. STRANG: Right.
MARK WIEGERT: -- last time you saw Teresa --
MR. STRANG: I know.
MARK WIEGERT: -- things like that.
MR. STRANG: I'm just saying as a starting point.
MARK WIEGERT: Certainly.
MR. STRANG: You get the information so you can come back to them.
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, sir.
MR. STRANG: And then it's, what's your relationship, have you seen her, when did you last talk to her, that kind of stuff?
MARK WIEGERT: Correct.
MR. STRANG: Okay. And so Czech and Bloedorn fell into that category early on and then you had that in case you needed to go back to it.
MARK WIEGERT: Yes. And, actually, I know, again, I can't say for sure Czech, but I know Bloedorn had been talked to another time --
MR. STRANG: Mm-hmm.
MARK WIEGERT: -- things like that, during the course of this. But you are correct, but that's how we do every missing persons complaint.
MR. STRANG: Okay. And in this one, as you work back, you learned that Ms Halbach had some plans, actually, for Saturday night, October 29, the Saturday before?
MARK WIEGERT: I believe so.
MR. STRANG: Halloween party or something like that?
MARK WIEGERT: My recollection, yeah, there was a holiday party type. I think maybe in Green Bay, but I don't recall without reviewing that report.
MR. STRANG: Right. And that's my recollection too. And as I sit here thinking of all these reports you talked about, I can't think of anyone who she was seeing at that party, from whom you have ever heard?
MARK WIEGERT: Again, without going back and looking at all the reports, I can't think of anybody offhand.
MR. STRANG: Who popped up and said, hey, I saw her Saturday night at the party?
MARK WIEGERT: Again, when I think back on it, there was a multitude of people, not only that we contacted, that contacted us and said, this is when I saw her last, or this is when I saw her last. I can't say, specifically, anybody told me they saw her at the Halloween party, offhand.
MR. STRANG: Yeah. No. And I -- Look, I would tell you if I knew that and I'm suggesting I don't. So, at least presently, your recollection is the same.
MARK WIEGERT: My recollection is that, without looking at the report, I can't say nobody told me that, but I don't recall anybody telling me that at this very moment.
MR. STRANG: Right. And, now, we have heard how early on in the investigation you learned that there were to be appointments at the Zipperer's and the Avery's or somebody at the Avery --
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: -- property? And Mr. Colborn goes out to the Avery property that very night, November 3rd?
MARK WIEGERT: She actually had, that we knew of, three appointments that day. And we sent an officer to -- actually, I made a phone call to the police in our county --
MR. STRANG: Right.
MARK WIEGERT: -- and then requested Manitowoc County to look at the other two residents because it was in their jurisdiction. And I also told them, eventually, that I would send a detective over to assist them with that.
MR. STRANG: All right. So three, three and a half weeks ago, actually, the fellow in your county, we heard from Steven Schmitz?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: And, then, the Zipperer residence was in Manitowoc County; the Avery residence was in Manitowoc County?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: And this is how the name Steven Avery first gets attached to the missing persons investigation?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: You -- And I don't -- I don't -- I'm not now suggesting that this happened right away on November 3, or November 4, I don't think it did, but one of the things you learned is that Mr. Avery had a girlfriend at that time named Jodi Stachowski.
MARK WIEGERT: That's correct.
MR. STRANG: You learned that she was serving a jail sentence right then?
MARK WIEGERT: Actually, I think I learned that several days after this all started. But at one point in this investigation, certainly --
MR. STRANG: Right. Yeah.
MARK WIEGERT: -- I learned that.
MR. STRANG: And I want to make that clear, I'm sure we're well -- we're some days after November 4th at this point, correct?
MARK WIEGERT: Correct.
MR. STRANG: Okay. And you learned that Ms Stachowski was doing a jail sentence at that point, in Manitowoc County?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: And you knew, because of your -- I guess, now, 15 years in law enforcement and 13 plus then, that phone calls out of a jail are tape recorded?
MARK WIEGERT: I know ours were and our system is only a few years old. I had no knowledge if Manitowoc's were at that point or not.
MR. STRANG: But you -- you -- you did learn, you came to learn, as part of your investigation, that Ms Stachowski's phone calls out of the Manitowoc County jail were on tape?
MARK WIEGERT: Certainly.
MR. STRANG: So you could go back and say to yourself, I wonder if she made any calls on October 31, 2005; specifically, I wonder if she called Mr. Avery?
MARK WIEGERT: You are asking me if we went back and looked?
MR. STRANG: Yes.
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, we did.
MR. STRANG: You -- You did and you found out that there were two telephone calls from Ms Stachowski in the jail, to Mr. Avery, the evening of October 31, 2005?
MARK WIEGERT: That is correct.
MR. STRANG: You had a chance to listen to those?
MARK WIEGERT: I have.
MR. STRANG: I mean, you personally?
MARK WIEGERT: I have.
MR. STRANG: One of them you recall as being at 5:36 p.m.?
MARK WIEGERT: I can tell you there were two calls. I don't want to say what time they were because I don't recall what time they actually were made, but.
MR. STRANG: You don't have any reason to disagree that the first one was at 5:36 p.m.?
MARK WIEGERT: I will take your word for it. I know it was earlier in the evening somewhere, but I can't say what time.
MR. STRANG: Subject to me being wrong, okay?
MARK WIEGERT: Sure.
MR. STRANG: Does 8:57 p.m. sound about right for the second phone call?
MARK WIEGERT: I know it was several hours after the first one.
MR. STRANG: Okay. And those calls had to go to a land line, so to speak, correct, from the jail?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: Because you have to call collect from a jail?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: And you can't call collect to a cellphone?
MARK WIEGERT: Some jails you can use calling cards; I don't know if Manitowoc is set up that way, but.
MR. STRANG: In any event --
MARK WIEGERT: One of the ways, you either have to use a calling card or call collect.
MR. STRANG: And, specifically, you were able to learn that these calls were made to Mr. Avery's land line, if that's the right word for your phone in your house?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. STRANG: Each one was about 15 minutes long?
MARK WIEGERT: I believe so, because I think that's as long as those calls can go at Manitowoc.
MR. STRANG: Okay. So you -- So you got to listen to those and confirm -- And I'm not -- I don't -- I don't get to put in anything Mr. Avery said, and I'm not trying to, okay? But, you were able to say, that's Steven Avery's voice and that's Jodi Stachowski's voice on these two phone calls?
MARK WIEGERT: Yeah. I mean, I recognized the number, certainly, that was called to Mr. Avery -- excuse me, certainly that the number that Mr. Avery picked up from, you know, the number from the phone call. And, eventually, I recognized his girlfriend's voice, after meeting with her on other occasions, certainly.
MR. STRANG: And you know Mr. Avery's voice, at least as you sit here today, you know his voice, as well?
MARK WIEGERT: Certainly, yes.
MR. STRANG: And now, on November 5, it's Saturday, and the car gets found, and you folks go out to the Avery property. And you are sort of off and running at that point. One of the -- One of the assignments you had, or you undertook, that afternoon, on Saturday, November 5, was to be the one to actually go and seek out a search warrant?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: And this was to be a search warrant for the Avery property in general, correct?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: But it also identified a couple of specific homes on the Avery property that, particularly, you wanted to search?
MARK WIEGERT: I believe so. I don't recall what at all that identified, but.
MR. STRANG: And here, I tell you what, I don't know that I even need to mark this, but I'm just -- I'm going to give it to you because --
MARK WIEGERT: Sure.
MR. STRANG: -- you can look at it.
MARK WIEGERT: Thank you.
MR. STRANG: What I have handed you, at this point unmarked --
MR. STRANG: And, your Honor, if the Court wants it marked with an exhibit number, I'm happy to do that.
MR. STRANG: (By Attorney Strang)~ -- but I just thought it might help refresh your recollection to see the affidavit, the search warrant. That's what I have given you, right?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: And it's got your signature on the second page?
MARK WIEGERT: Certainly.
MR. STRANG: It's dated Mar -- November 5, I'm sorry, 2005?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: And when you want a court, or a judge of a court, to give you a search warrant, which is just judicial permission to search a place or a person, you have to apply for that warrant in front of the judge, true?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: And the application is called an affidavit, at least typically?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: And affidavit meaning because it's actually sworn on -- on under oath.
MARK WIEGERT: That's correct.
MR. STRANG: So you were the person who swore out the affidavit here?
MARK WIEGERT: I did.
MR. STRANG: You got it about 3:00 in the afternoon, from a Manitowoc judge?
MARK WIEGERT: I actually think it was about 3:25.
MR. STRANG: Okay. Good enough. We're talking about the same search warrant?
MARK WIEGERT: Sure. Yes.
MR. STRANG: And now that you have it, I think the -- Paragraph 4, you give your first description of a specific home or residence that you want to search, and that's Steven Avery's trailer home, true?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: Then, if you continue on in Paragraph 4, you also, specifically, next describe Barb Janda's trailer home?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: And then you go on to say, and, you know, the whole 40 acre parcel we want to search as well, and that has a number of other buildings and places to be searched?
MARK WIEGERT: It talks about the 40 acres, describes the property.
MR. STRANG: Right.
MARK WIEGERT: Talks about the outbuildings, the vehicles.
MR. STRANG: And by -- by 3:25 p.m, that Saturday, what you were saying under oath, to Judge Fox, was that you believed that Teresa Halbach was the victim of crimes, including among others, homicide?
MR. KRATZ: Objection, Judge, it's a vague question and it's also misleading, did not include the requisite legal standard in which applications are presented to a Court.
MR. STRANG: Well, I can --
MR. KRATZ: Far different than what we are doing here in trial, Judge.
MR. STRANG: No, I -- And that's -- If that's the only concern, let's deal with that, you and I, pretty easily. Okay?
MR. STRANG: (By Attorney Strang)~ To get a search warrant, you have to show something called probable cause.
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: Which is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt?
MARK WIEGERT: That's correct, something lower than that.
MR. STRANG: It's -- Not getting into a legal lecture, it's essentially a good reason, a reasonable basis, to search a place or a person?
MARK WIEGERT: I would agree.
MR. STRANG: Okay. And so what you are -- the actual language, what you say in your affidavit, in Paragraph 7, is you're saying you're affiant, which is a formal way of saying to a judge, me, I. Right? And you are describing yourself as the affiant?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: Okay. Affiant just being someone who makes out an affidavit?
MARK WIEGERT: You are correct.
MR. STRANG: So you are saying that you believe that, based upon Teresa's lack of contact with her employer and family members, and her vehicle being abandoned at the Avery Auto Salvage Yard, that Teresa Halbach is the victim of a crime, including, but not limited to, and then you start with homicide?
MARK WIEGERT: Are you asking me, that's what it says?
MR. STRANG: Yes.
MARK WIEGERT: That's what it says.
MR. STRANG: Right. And that's what you told Judge Fox in an effort just to establish probable cause?
MARK WIEGERT: That's correct.
MR. STRANG: Okay. So, I mean, in other words, at this point, although you don't know for sure, you think you have got probable cause by 3:25 on Saturday afternoon, to believe that there's actual criminal activity up to and including homicide, and this is not just a missing persons investigation?
MARK WIEGERT: I know it's out of character for Teresa not to be home. I know it's out of character for Teresa's vehicle to show up on the Avery property, to be concealed on the Avery property.
MR. STRANG: Sure.
MARK WIEGERT: Absolutely.
MR. STRANG: So the answer to my question is yes?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: Okay. Now, I want to -- I want to cover some things, I guess in a summary way, Investigator Wiegert, drawing on your deep familiarity with this investigation as one of two lead investigators.
MARK WIEGERT: Sure.
MR. STRANG: All right. You know that during the course of the investigation, up to today, you have not -- you collectively now, I mean investigators -- have not recovered anything identified as Teresa Halbach's purse?
MARK WIEGERT: No, I don't know that.
MR. STRANG: Did you -- Did you find a purse at her home?
MARK WIEGERT: No, but testimony from other witnesses, you know, there was buckles, things like that, which could have come from a purse. I don't know if we collected anything from the purse or not.
MR. STRANG: Yeah.
MARK WIEGERT: I can't say we haven't.
MR. STRANG: Okay.
MARK WIEGERT: Very possible we have.
MR. STRANG: I was trying to be careful with the question. I mean, you're not -- you don't know that you've recovered her purse?
MARK WIEGERT: I don't know if we have or if we haven't.
MR. STRANG: Okay. You -- You -- You are aware that a Toyota key was recovered?
MARK WIEGERT: Absolutely.
MR. STRANG: Was found?
MARK WIEGERT: Mm-hmm.
MR. STRANG: Mr. Lenk said he found that key or was the first to see it?
MARK WIEGERT: Mr. Lenk found the key, yes.
MR. STRANG: And you have no other keys that you've found in the course of this investigation, other than any you may have seen at Ms Halbach's own house?
MARK WIEGERT: We found a lot of keys.
MR. STRANG: And, specifically, linked to Ms Halbach?
MARK WIEGERT: None that we could specifically link to her, but we did find a lot of keys.
MR. STRANG: That turned out to be not connected to Teresa Halbach?
MARK WIEGERT: I wouldn't say that. I don't know if they are or not. To the best of our ability, we tried to determine if they were or not, and we haven't been able to determine that to this date --
MR. STRANG: All right.
MARK WIEGERT: -- what they are.
MR. STRANG: I mean, that is, you tried them in her front door, or in her business, the lock on the door of her business?
MARK WIEGERT: There were some keys that we had recovered that we had actually taken to -- I believe it was where she coached volleyball at her church, and attempted to use them there and they did not work.
MR. STRANG: They did not work?
MARK WIEGERT: That's correct.
MR. STRANG: Didn't find a key that worked in the front door of her house?
MARK WIEGERT: Not yet, no.
MR. STRANG: Or in her business?
MARK WIEGERT: No.
MR. STRANG: The -- One of the men that you later were able to confirm that she visited and took a photograph of a car he had for sale, on October 31st, was this Steve Schmitz, whom we spoke about a few minutes ago?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: Mr. Schmitz, you learned, wrote a check for the Auto Trader services?
MARK WIEGERT: I would have to see that report. I don't know how he paid. I think you are right. I recall seeing a check from him.
MR. STRANG: Yeah, I think he actually testified --
MARK WIEGERT: That's possible.
MR. STRANG: -- to that. That's a check that you never found?
MARK WIEGERT: Could you be more specific, never found, period?
MR. STRANG: It never turned up?
MARK WIEGERT: Not to my knowledge.
MR. STRANG: And you -- you -- you checked into this, so to speak, and found out that the check was never negotiated.
MARK WIEGERT: I believe, actually, now that you are talking about, he had stopped payment on that check, I think was his testimony, I believe.
MR. STRANG: And you learned that no one ever presented the check for payment, or tried to cash the check?
MARK WIEGERT: Not that we have been made aware of.
MR. STRANG: At some point early on, and when I say early on I mean in 2005, you were aware of an anonymous letter being found at the Green Bay Post Office, addressed to the Manitowoc sheriff?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: You have heard testimony about that, I think a little bit today, with Mr. Riddle?
MARK WIEGERT: That's correct.
MR. STRANG: That's a letter you saw at the time?
MARK WIEGERT: No, I did not see it at the time.
MR. STRANG: You didn't?
MARK WIEGERT: I have seen it since.
MR. STRANG: Okay.
MARK WIEGERT: But when it was brought back, I did not see it, no.
MR. STRANG: This was Exhibit 497. I will show you exhibit 497.
MARK WIEGERT: Sure.
MR. STRANG: Specifically, the -- three and four pages; it's a five page exhibit. When, roughly, at least, was the first time you saw that letter?
MARK WIEGERT: I know that I heard that this letter was at the Green Bay Post Office. As a matter of fact, I think I made arrangements with one of our detectives to eventually get up there and pick it up. I think, if memory serves me correctly, we had Green Bay Police Department secure it for us.
MR. STRANG: So you are involved in assigning somebody to go get the letter --
MARK WIEGERT: Right.
MR. STRANG: -- and bring it back?
MARK WIEGERT: But I can't tell you exactly when I saw it; I don't recall.
MR. STRANG: Would it have been shortly after it came back to the Calumet County Sheriff's Office?
MARK WIEGERT: Again, I know I have seen it. I don't know exactly when, because commonly when things come back, if the officer needs to put that into a short term storage, then I don't have access to that. So I probably didn't see it that very day, would be my guess.
MR. STRANG: You do know that later in 2006 you saw it in the property room at -- at your sheriff's office?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: You are not aware of anything having been pursued on the letter between the first time you saw it and, then, the next time you saw it in 2006, in the property room?
MARK WIEGERT: Well, again, I don't know dates, but I would disagree with you. There were things pursued about it.
MR. STRANG: Oh. And what did you pursue on the letter?
MARK WIEGERT: I think the -- one of the DCI agents testified this morning that they had looked into the smelter and determined that it had nothing to do with this case.
MR. STRANG: Well, actually, you know, and I was here to, and the jury will -- you are speaking about Mr. Pevytoe?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, that's correct.
MR. STRANG: Okay. So we'll let the jury decide what they heard, but I think what he said is he looked in, felt around, and took -- took nothing, saw nothing of evidentiary value and took nothing from inside the smelter?
MR. KRATZ: I think that's a mischaracterization. I know we're getting into what the jury remembers. And I'm just interposing that objection. Because he did testify as to whether or not it was recently used or not.
THE COURT: I think he's asking the witness if that's the witness' recollection.
MR. KRATZ: Okay.
MR. STRANG: (By Attorney Strang)~ And we can -- we can step off that because what another witness says is really not the point here.
MARK WIEGERT: Sure.
MR. STRANG: Other than Mr. Pevytoe looking at the aluminum smelter, doing what he described himself, in the same chair you're in, is there anything else you did in pursuit of the letter marked as Exhibit 497, before sending it to Mr. Riddle in 2006?
MARK WIEGERT: No, I don't know what else could have been done with it.
MR. STRANG: Did you -- Did you personally ever see the aluminum smelter, during the week, roughly, that you were out at the Avery property, November 5 through November 12, 2005?
MARK WIEGERT: I don't believe so. And if I saw it, I probably wouldn't have known what it was, so.
MR. STRANG: You didn't make a point of going to the smelter?
MARK WIEGERT: No, I did not.
MR. STRANG: I'm going to ask you to stick, for the time being, during that same week --
MARK WIEGERT: Sure.
MR. STRANG: -- while you are spending, basically all or most of your waking hours out at the Avery property that week, right?
MARK WIEGERT: That's correct, yes.
MR. STRANG: You learned on Saturday, November 5, that one of the human remains dogs had alerted strongly on or neither the Janda burn barrels?
MARK WIEGERT: As well as by Teresa's vehicle, yes.
MR. STRANG: Right. And there had been other alerts, for that matter, down in the pit, or in cars near the vehicle, near the Toyota?
MARK WIEGERT: Sure.
MR. STRANG: But there was -- You learned there was a strong alert near one of the Janda burn barrels, or that area?
MARK WIEGERT: I know that there was an alert. I can't say if it was strong or not. I don't have any knowledge of how the dog actually alerts, for the most part. I know there was an alert, I can tell you that.
MR. STRANG: You learned -- You learned that some burnt bone fragments later were found in one of the barrels?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: You also were aware that there were several sites off the Avery property, but in that, you know, in that general part of the world, where possible bone fragments were found and looked at?
MARK WIEGERT: I know there were other sites, you would maybe want to call dumping areas, where maybe something was there that resembled, and I will give you an example, there was a gravel pit where one of these searchers had found what they thought might be a foot and it turned out to be a piece of insulation that was burned. So there were a lot of those false things that were going on, certainly.
MR. STRANG: Well, and not all of them -- not all of them false, in the sense that --
MARK WIEGERT: I think the vast majority were.
MR. STRANG: Okay. And then there were several, one, for example, was in the Michel's Quarry to the east of the Avery property.
MARK WIEGERT: I'm aware of one that I can say that the doctor had said that there was possible human bone, or bone, that was there, but that's the one I'm aware of.
MR. STRANG: East -- Is this the one east of the Avery property or the one southwest?
MARK WIEGERT: I don't recall which one it was.
MR. STRANG: Okay. But at least one of them resulted in bone fragments, human or nonhuman, but bone fragments and other debris, if you will, being sent to Dr. Leslie Eisenberg?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, and to my recollection, she determined she didn't know for sure what it was, human or nonhuman.
MR. STRANG: And, again, we have her testimony to rely on for that --
MARK WIEGERT: Absolutely.
MR. STRANG: -- rather than your recollection or mine?
MARK WIEGERT: Certainly.
MR. STRANG: But that -- that at least -- Do you remember that being the site that was southwest of the Avery property?
MARK WIEGERT: My recollection of it is, the map you showed today. Now, if that was exactly the one, I would not be able to tell you that.
MR. STRANG: You personally never went there?
MARK WIEGERT: No, I did not.
MR. STRANG: You were involved, if I recall correctly, because I think you were in one of the pictures, in the search on tarps, through debris in -- at the Crime Lab in December of 2005?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, I was present, I think for one day of that, yes.
MR. STRANG: That was a two day project in December of 2005 and then two more days, but I think back in the Calumet Sheriff's Office in March of 2006; does that sound right?
MARK WIEGERT: Sounds pretty close to it, yes.
MR. STRANG: You were -- You were involved only in one day and then in December at the Crime Lab?
MARK WIEGERT: I was involved in a day at the Crime Lab and I would say maybe a day back here, later on in that year.
MR. STRANG: Okay. One of the reasons for that was to be combing through, looking for pieces of metal, or other, I guess bone fragments would have been of interest, anything that might look important, or possibly important, in going through that debris?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, absolutely.
MR. STRANG: At least two rivets were found in that debris?
MARK WIEGERT: Five rivets.
MR. STRANG: Five total?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, at this date we have -- to this date we have five rivets identified as Daisy Fuentes rivets.
MR. STRANG: Okay. And that's why it's useful to have you as a lead investigator here, so.
MARK WIEGERT: Thank you.
MR. STRANG: No, I mean you have -- but you have got -- you have got sort of the overview of things?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, I would, probably better than some other people, yes.
MR. STRANG: Right. So five Daisy Fuentes rivets, no Daisy Fuentes button, metal button?
MARK WIEGERT: Five rivets, a zipper; no, I don't believe we ever found, if you are talking about the main button?
MR. STRANG: Yeah, on a pair of jeans?
MARK WIEGERT: I don't believe we ever recovered that. And there were some eyelets that looked like they came from shoes, actually, that were recovered.
MR. STRANG: Okay. And the zipper was not something that said Daisy Fuentes?
MARK WIEGERT: No, my recollection, it had the initials YKK on it.
MR. STRANG: Mine too, or something like very close to that. I think it was YKK too, that's my recollection too, which you learned is a very large zipper manufacturer?
MARK WIEGERT: Sure. Yes.
MR. STRANG: So that -- that zipper, you never were able to link to any special pair of jeans, or coat, or any other garment?
MARK WIEGERT: I can tell you it matches the one on the jeans which we had brought into court, same holes, same letters, everything, that I can tell you.
MR. STRANG: But, again, it's sort of -- it's a large zipper manufacturer, which makes lots and lots of sort of generic zippers.
MARK WIEGERT: The initials on there, yes. Whether the holes are in the same place on all pants, I don't have that.
MR. STRANG: Right. Okay. Same week, one of the places you did personally get to, was Steven Avery's garage?
MARK WIEGERT: I know I had been down to the garage that week we were out there, yes. I don't know what day for sure, I wouldn't be able to tell you that.
MR. STRANG: I could probably show you a report, although, I'm not -- I'm not sure you and I would really have any dispute over this. If I suggested to you that November 12 is the day you folks pulled up stakes --
MARK WIEGERT: Sure.
MR. STRANG: -- and stopped --
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: -- and you ended that search, so to speak, of the whole property?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, we did.
MR. STRANG: You and Mr. Fassbender did a final sort of walk through on at least some of the sites on that property?
MARK WIEGERT: As best we could. We felt it was our responsibility to know the condition of it when we left, because we were the lead agents on that case, that's correct.
MR. STRANG: You knew that earlier in the week, I say the week, I mean this seven or eight day period you folks were out there, that shell casings had been found in the garage, on the floor?
MARK WIEGERT: I know there were some found. I don't know what day but, yes, had to be earlier than the 12th, correct.
MR. STRANG: Turns out to be 11 brass shell casings?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: .22 caliber?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: You -- You had told investigators, people involved in actually searching the garage, in your role as a lead investigator, you had told folks, in essence, where there are cartridge shells there may be bullets?
MARK WIEGERT: Did I specifically tell somebody that, no.
MR. STRANG: You understood that they would be looking for bullets?
MARK WIEGERT: I can't testify to what they understood. They were to look for all sorts of evidence. Would that be included in there, if they knew what they were looking for, yeah, I'm sure.
MR. STRANG: Well, did you try to assign people who you thought knew what they were looking for?
MARK WIEGERT: I would think I would know what I'm looking for, but I wouldn't know what a spent bullet would look like.
MR. STRANG: I guess my question is, did you -- did you try to assign people who you thought would know what they were looking for?
MARK WIEGERT: I assigned people that I trusted, as evidence technicians, to do the job.
MR. STRANG: All right. And you would expect, if they had recognized a bullet, or a fragment of bullet, in the garage, you would have expected somebody to have said this may be important enough to pick up?
MARK WIEGERT: If they, in fact, had saw it and recognized what it was, absolutely, I'm sure they would have.
MR. STRANG: All right. And you were satisfied, by the time you did that final walk through with Mr. Fassbender, that the garage had been searched as thoroughly as reasonably possible?
MARK WIEGERT: I was satisfied that the people who were searching the garage had did the best job they could, under the circumstances.
MR. STRANG: Did a walk through yourself, saw nothing that you recognized as being possibly important as evidence?
MARK WIEGERT: I don't know if I did a walk through the garage. I went down to the garage. I know I walked into the house trailer. I can't say that -- I don't believe I did walk through the garage, to the best of my recollection.
MR. STRANG: Okay. But you were satisfied that where the searching productively could have been done, had been done by that time?
MARK WIEGERT: To the best of their ability at the time, I'm sure, yeah.
MR. STRANG: Yeah. And I mean, and let's be clear, I mean, ultimately, it was -- it was a law enforcement decision on when to turn this property back over to the Avery family, right?
MARK WIEGERT: It certainly was. And if I -- Do I wish I could have had another three weeks to move everything out of every garage, and every air compressor, every refrigerator, go through every part of that salvage yard, with a fine tooth comb, I would love to have, but it's not feasible.
MR. STRANG: All right. So you made the decision, that Saturday morning, November 12, was the day?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, because, you know, for several reasons, we did the best we could in that time period. The Avery's had a business to run. We had already put them out for a week. And it was a hard decision to make, to be honest with you.
MR. STRANG: Was that a business that at some point you, in a moment -- in an unguarded moment, said you wanted to shut down?
MARK WIEGERT: No, I don't ever remember saying that.
MR. STRANG: Now, in any event, you knew that when you turned the property back over to the people who lived and worked there, you would lose control over the property, that's obvious?
MARK WIEGERT: Certainly.
MR. STRANG: Law enforcement would?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: People would come and go as they pleased?
MARK WIEGERT: I would think that -- I don't know if people come and go as they please. The Avery's would assume back their responsibility for their residences and business.
MR. STRANG: Right. And customers would come to the business?
MARK WIEGERT: I'm sure.
MR. STRANG: People would live in their houses, use their garages, that kind of stuff?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, sir.
MR. STRANG: Two of the people -- I don't know that you personally had contact with either one, you may have, I don't know. But two of the people whom investigators working under your joint direction with Mr. Fassbender met and had contact with that week, were Bobby Dassey and Scott Tadych?
MARK WIEGERT: Could you ask the question again, I'm not sure what you are asking?
MR. STRANG: Got pretty long. Someone, during the week you were out searching the Avery property, had contact with Bobby Dassey and Scott Tadych?
MARK WIEGERT: I believe so. I know somebody had contact with Bobby on Saturday already.
MR. STRANG: Saturday, the 5th, the first Saturday?
MARK WIEGERT: That's correct, yes.
MR. STRANG: You personally didn't have any contact, that you remember, with Bobby Dassey or Scott Tadych, that week?
MARK WIEGERT: Not to my recollection, no. I don't believe I personally have. But I know that there was another investigator who actually talked to Bobby from our department. That I know, but I don't know about Mr. Tadych.
MR. STRANG: Okay. Now, you did learn, in the course of your work as a lead investigator here, that Bobby and Scott each sort of were the only one who could say the other was going deer hunting the afternoon of October 31?
MARK WIEGERT: No, I don't know that that's true, that I can say that they were the only ones who knew they were going deer hunting. No, I can't say that. I know they passed each other on the road, if that's what you're asking.
MR. STRANG: Right.
MARK WIEGERT: That I know.
MR. STRANG: I mean, Bobby said, I passed Scott. Scott said, yeah, I passed Bobby. And each says I'm going deer hunting, and the other guy is going deer hunting; that you knew?
MARK WIEGERT: I know they passed each other on the road. I know they were going hunting, yes.
MR. STRANG: Or that that's what they said?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: Did you -- you, also, I guess, learned that Mr. Tadych had not gone to work on October 31?
MARK WIEGERT: Did I know that? Is that what you're --
MR. STRANG: Yeah. Did you learn that during the course of your investigation?
MARK WIEGERT: I learned that he had been to visit his mother in the hospital, in Green Bay. Yeah, I did hear that.
MR. STRANG: That that's what he said?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: Anybody ever check out, you know, check whether the mother in fact was in the hospital, or had an operation?
MARK WIEGERT: I don't believe so. I just know that people had -- that we eventually asked Barb the same thing. And Barb had -- which is his girlfriend, or wife, now.
MR. STRANG: Right, girlfriend, then.
MARK WIEGERT: She had verified that that's where he was. And she, eventually, I believe, went up there with him, to my recollection.
MR. STRANG: She goes up for an evening trip?
MARK WIEGERT: I believe she said so, yes.
MR. STRANG: Right. Okay. Anyone ever ask Bobby why, if he was going deer hunting, he would have taken a shower right before going deer hunting?
MARK WIEGERT: Again, I didn't interview Bobby, so I wouldn't be able to answer that.
MR. STRANG: You don't remember whether he was --
MARK WIEGERT: I don't know if anybody asked him why he took a shower. No, I don't.
MR. STRANG: Let's move forward, then. The next time you are on the Avery property is about four months later, March, 2006, at least on to search?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, certainly.
MR. STRANG: Another search warrant?
MARK WIEGERT: That's correct.
MR. STRANG: And we're talking about the first two days of March, 2006?
MARK WIEGERT: I believe it was the first and second of March, we were back out there.
MR. STRANG: Now, this was a more focused search, if you will, in terms of the actual physical area you were searching?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, we had developed new information on the case and we acted on that information.
MR. STRANG: And what you were searching this time was Steven Avery's garage and Steven Avery's trailer. And then I think probably the Janda house as well, correct?
MARK WIEGERT: We had a search warrant, again, based on new information that was learned in the case, for Mr. Avery's trailer and Mr. Avery's garage. And Barb Janda, I don't recall what her new last name is. I will refer to her as Janda, at the time, had given us verbal permission to enter her house. I think we might have even had written permission from her. So that wasn't included in the search warrant, but she had given us permission --
MR. STRANG: Okay.
MARK WIEGERT: -- to go in there.
MR. STRANG: The point is, we're not -- this isn't a search of the whole 40 acres again, this is some specific areas that were in the northwest corner?
MARK WIEGERT: For specific areas spelled out in the search warrant, which was granted to us.
MR. STRANG: Now, by -- by that time, four months into the investigation, essentially, did you have sufficient evidence technicians available to you, in the Calumet Sheriff's Office and the DCI, to conduct the search of Mr. Avery's garage and the search of his trailer, in March, 2006?
MARK WIEGERT: I probably can't answer that yes or no. I would probably have to expound on that a little bit.
MR. STRANG: Well, who invited the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department back to help in that search?
MARK WIEGERT: Matter of fact, I notified Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department because it is in their jurisdiction and I feel it's my duty that they know that we're going out to the Avery property.
MR. STRANG: Okay. And that's certainly courteous, but who invited Manitowoc County Sheriff's personnel to help search and collect evidence in the garage and the trailer, in March, 2006.
MARK WIEGERT: I believe that we utilized Detective Remiker and it was a joint decision between Mr. Fassbender and myself. And I stand by that decision.
MR. STRANG: Okay. Was Detective Remiker the only Manitowoc officer, to your knowledge, that you used --
MARK WIEGERT: Searching?
MR. STRANG: -- in the March search?
MARK WIEGERT: If you're talking about the physical searching?
MR. STRANG: Yes.
MARK WIEGERT: That is my recollection, yes.
MR. STRANG: Now, let's -- let's move forward, finally, to the blood vial --
MARK WIEGERT: Sure.
MR. STRANG: -- sitting there in front of you. In fact, you knew, just from watching TV, I guess, back in November of 2005, that Mr. Avery, personally, was saying, you know, if my blood is in the Toyota, someone must have put it there, words to that affect?
MARK WIEGERT: You know, something to that affect. Again, I couldn't say but, yeah, there was something to that affect, where he would talk about planting it or something, I recall.
MR. STRANG: Yeah. Sure. And, in fact, you were standing probably closer to Mr. Kratz than I'm standing to you, at a news conference, in November of 2005, where you heard Mr. Kratz --
MR. KRATZ: Objection, it's irrelevant. My comments in this case are irrelevant.
MR. STRANG: I'm not at all sure they are, given the direct examination here.
THE COURT: I'm going to sustain the objection.
MR. STRANG: (By Attorney Strang)~ You were aware of the agents of the State, back in November of 2005, publicly ridiculing the claim that law enforcement officers would be walking around with vials of Mr. Avery's DNA? You were aware of that weren't you?
MARK WIEGERT: Yeah, absolutely.
MR. STRANG: Okay.
MARK WIEGERT: I agree with that.
MR. STRANG: But you also know that a Clerk of Court's Office is a public office, right?
MARK WIEGERT: It's open, the lobby is open to the public.
MR. STRANG: Right.
MARK WIEGERT: That's true.
MR. STRANG: It keeps public records?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: Court records?
MARK WIEGERT: Mm-hmm.
MR. STRANG: These are available to be looked at for the asking, for any member of the public who comes to the counter at the Clerk's Office?
MARK WIEGERT: I assume so, yes.
MR. STRANG: And you know that, I mean, there's a Clerk of Court's Office right across the hall in this building; isn't there?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes.
MR. STRANG: Sure. And you, as a law enforcement officer, interact with the Clerk's Office from time to time?
MARK WIEGERT: No, I can honestly say, in my 14 years here, other than when I'm on the stand in the court office, I don't interact with the Clerk of Court's.
MR. STRANG: Don't you file returns for search warrants?
MARK WIEGERT: That's about the only thing I do, from the front window, yes. I mean, that's my -- If you are saying that's interaction, yes, you are correct. That would be the extent of my interaction.
MR. STRANG: I should not use 69 cent words but, I mean, you know, you go there yourself to file a return for a search warrant?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, that would be the extent of my interaction.
MR. STRANG: Okay. And you were aware, from very near the beginning of this investigation, that Mr. Avery had this lawsuit pending against Manitowoc County?
MARK WIEGERT: Certainly I was aware of that, yes.
MR. STRANG: For the wrongful imprisonment?
MARK WIEGERT: Against Manitowoc County, certainly.
MR. STRANG: Right. Against Manitowoc County. But as I understand you, in pursuing this, look for, you know, gee, does Manitowoc County have his DNA somewhere, neither you, nor anyone under your direction, ever just went to the Clerk of Court's Office to look at the old case file?
MARK WIEGERT: I did not. And I would never think of looking in a case file for blood. And I don't know that anybody else probably would either, unless they had some knowledge of it being there.
MR. STRANG: Okay. We didn't have knowledge of it being there, but we looked, and that's how you found out, right?
MARK WIEGERT: I would think you would probably have more knowledge of it being Mr. Avery's attorney, than I would. Because, obviously, he knew this blood was drawn.
MR. KRATZ: I'm going to interpose an objection, that's providing testimony.
THE COURT: Yeah, I don't think this line of questioning is proper. I'm going to sustain the objection.
MR. KRATZ: Ask that be stricken, Mr. Strang's testimony or comment.
THE COURT: We'll strike the question, the comment, and the answer. The Court will order that it be stricken.
MR. STRANG: (By Attorney Strang)~ You did not, in any event, go to the Clerk's Office until after receiving notice that the defense had found this box that we have seen?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, sir, that's correct.
MR. STRANG: All right. And, then, as you said before, you were one of a group of people, from the prosecution and the defense, who were there when the box, the styrofoam box was opened?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, I was.
MR. STRANG: In fact, I was about the only person who wasn't there?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes. I think Mr. Buting was there, I believe.
MR. STRANG: All right. And I'm going to -- We have already played part of, or we played all of Exhibit 470. And I just want to go back to part of that.
THE COURT: Let's take a stretch break while he's doing that. Just in terms of timing, how long are you looking at?
MR. STRANG: Another 90 seconds.
THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.
MR. STRANG: (By Attorney Strang)~ All right. We're going to do it this way, come on over.
MARK WIEGERT: Sure.
MR. STRANG: What I have got is Exhibit 470 here. Now, the jury can't see this, but look upside down, this is the blood vial that you saw when you guys went and looked and videotaped this?
MARK WIEGERT: Yes, sir.
MR. STRANG: Okay. What does that say right there, on the manufacturer label?
MARK WIEGERT: There's some numbers and it says EXP March '90 something, I can't say.
MR. STRANG: March '96?
MARK WIEGERT: '96 or '98, I can't tell.
MR. STRANG: Okay. You can go back, you are not miked. Same tube, right? Inside here?
MARK WIEGERT: I believe so, I would need to look at it.
MR. STRANG: Sure.
MARK WIEGERT: Looks like the same tube.
MR. STRANG: Yeah. Now somebody has written initials over that last digit, but EXP is -- you recognize that as a common abbreviation for expiration, right?
MR. KRATZ: Objection, speculation, Judge. I don't know that he has a foundation for that on a purple-topped tube.
THE COURT: There would have to be a foundation for the witness to answer the question.
MR. STRANG: (By Attorney Strang)~ Did you ever buy Advil, or Pepto-Bismol, or anything at the grocery store, that has an expiration date?
MR. KRATZ: I'm sorry, Judge, I am going to interpose an objection. I don't know that that applies to this case.
THE COURT: I agree, I don't think it would be that simple to lay a foundation for this witness to be qualified to answer.
MR. STRANG: In any event, what you see is EXP and then a space and then March '96 or '98, whatever the last digit is?
MARK WIEGERT: Yeah, nine something, along with a lot of other writing, but that's one of the things.
MR. STRANG: Somebody has written initials on that now, right?
MARK WIEGERT: Initials, Steven Avery's name. There's a lot of writing on this tube.
MR. STRANG: Okay. All right. You can pop it back in there.
MR. STRANG: That's all I have.
THE COURT: Any redirect?
MR. KRATZ: No, not for this witness.
THE COURT: Very well, the witness is excused. Do we have any exhibits that require action?
COURT CLERK: 496 from the State, that was the flash card.
MR. KRATZ: We would offer that, Judge. Actually, before the close of the case wanted to have an accounting of things but, that not withstanding, we do know that the flash card we are moving.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. STRANG: There is no objection to Exhibit 496.
THE COURT: Very well, that exhibit is admitted. Mr. Kratz, anything from State before we adjourn for today?
MR. KRATZ: Not for -- from the State, for today, Judge. There is something outside the presence of the jury I would like to address with the Court, but nothing further at this time.
THE COURT: Is it something that requires the jury to come back?
MR. KRATZ: Not today, Judge.
MR. STRANG: We can just take a brief side bar.
MR. KRATZ: Side bar.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. STRANG: Deal with that.
THE COURT: Okay. We'll do that.
(Side bar taken.)
THE COURT: All right. The record will reflect that I just met with the attorneys to talk about a stipulation, which I understand I'm going to be hearing in a minute, before we send the jury home for the day. Mr. Kratz.
MR. KRATZ: Thank you, Judge. Your Honor, subject to the State offering and the Court ruling on exhibits, which I believe -- or which the State believes will be appropriately part of the record in the State's case-in-chief, at this time the State intends to rest.
THE COURT: Okay. And those are exhibits that have already been marked, correct?
MR. KRATZ: That's right, Judge.
THE COURT: But the State may be requesting the admission of some exhibits that have not been admitted yet, and subject to that, the State is resting?
MR. KRATZ: That's right, Judge.
THE COURT: First, Mr. Strang, does the defense have any objection to that procedure?
MR. STRANG: We do not. We understand that the State has rested and that there may be some housekeeping to do on exhibits already marked and identified in the State's case-in-chief. No objection to that.
THE COURT: And I further understand that the parties are requesting the Court to consider matters outside the presence of the jury, which would result in not needing the jury until tomorrow afternoon; is that correct?
MR. STRANG: Yes.
THE COURT: Mr. Kratz.
MR. KRATZ: Unless they object, Judge, yes.
THE COURT: Members of the jury, I'm not going to ask you if you would like to sit around all morning tomorrow before we get started. So let's do this, how about if we have you meet at the normal location for the bus at 12:30 tomorrow and we'll bring you back for a session just tomorrow afternoon.
I probably should have asked, I don't know the transportation arrangements for the morning, does that pose a problem for any member of the jury? Very well. Then, Robbie, I will ask you to notify the bus people of that change. And you are excused for today. I will remind you, again, not to discuss the matter or look at anything on TV, radio, or any other media. And we'll see you tomorrow, sometime around 1:15 or so.
(Jury not present.)
THE COURT: You may be seated. Counsel, then, I would like to see you in chambers for just a couple minutes before you leave today.
(Proceedings concluded.)