5.State’s Closing Argument (Part 1)

MR. KRATZ: Can everybody hear me okay? Is that all right? Thank you. Then, I will begin. May it please the Court. Let me start ladies and gentlemen by thanking you for the time and attention that you have given to this very important case for the last five weeks.

This is an important duty. It's an important duty not just for the 12 of you that are going to decide the case, but for really all of Manitowoc County. You are representatives of the citizens of Manitowoc County.

And I'm going to be highlighting some of the facts in this case that the State believes was important. The last thing I'm going to do is reiterate -- or try to reiterate all of the facts, all the evidence that has been presented. I don't think you want to hear lawyers any more talking for you incessantly or hours upon hours. But there are some important parts of this case.

We start with why are we here. It would be a natural thought process for a jury to think, you know, we have been sitting here for five weeks, there must be a reason. There's got to be a reason why, for five weeks, we have had to listen to over 500 exhibits, something approaching 60 witnesses, and there must be a conflict. There must be a controversy that has to be tried in this case.

We're here because Steven Avery pled not guilty. We're here because Mr. Avery has a constitutionally protective right to be tried when he pleads not guilty, like anybody else who pleads not guilty. There hasn't been any question and I don't want you to sit in that jury box and think that there is any question about who is responsible for the death and the mutilation of Teresa Halbach.

The fact that we have been here five weeks is because it's my duty, it's my job, to prove all the elements of the offenses for which Mr. Avery is charged. Not because there are questions. And I start by saying that for, I think, obvious reasons. Because as jurors, you must be thinking, or you would naturally be thinking, that there's got to be two sides to this. And as the State and as we, I think, have presented in this case, all of the evidence points to one person. That's the one person being responsible.

I'm going to argue at the conclusion of this case who that one person is. I bet you can guess who I'm going to suggest was -- was responsible. But, again, please keep, before any of the evidence I talk about, please keep that in mind, that we're here because that man pled not guilty and because that man is entitled to a trial.

Cases are decided on facts, at least from the State's perspective. We don't present speculation. We don't ask you to perform guesswork when deciding what happens. You know the funny thing about facts is facts are stubborn. Facts don't change. You can twist them and you can beat them up, you can try to massage, if you will, the facts, but facts don't change.

The facts in this case, as presented, and as I will present to you, are very much so uncontested, uncontroverted, at least most of the facts in this case are uncontroverted. But my job is going to be to take you through what I think are the important facts of this case, why we think we have proved the case, beyond a reasonable doubt, against Steven Avery. And I intend do that.

The first fact that I would like to talk about is a starting point in the case. Now, every case has a starting point. When you think about a case this big, and by now you realize and you have heard just how big of a case this is. You have heard that the Crime Lab received the most submissions ever in the history of the Wisconsin State Crime Lab, that more law enforcement officers were used in this case, from an investigative standpoint, than any other case.

But what does that mean. Try and put that in perspective in -- in kind of an historical perspective. That means that this is a pretty darn big case. And when a case is that big, the natural tendency is to try to look at the big picture, and to try to absorb it all, if you can. But I'm not going to do that.

I want you to pick one particular point in time. I want to start the presentation that I have with one moment in time. Now, we could have started any number of moments. There's been what we call watershed moments, real important moments in the case when Teresa Halbach was shot, when she was murdered. That's a particularly important moment. We could start with the moment or with the visual or with the image of that man, Steven Avery, standing outside of a big bonfire, with flames over the roof, or at least over the garage roof, and the silhouette of Steven Avery, with the bonfire in the background and the observations made by some witnesses.

Can you all picture that? Can you picture that as a moment, as a moment in time? And that moment, by the way, although dramatic and although important, should tell the whole story. That moment of Steven Avery, after the murder was committed, of Steven Avery tending the fire, of Steven Avery disposing of and mutilating the body of 25 year old Teresa Halbach. That would be a good place to start.

But I'm not going to start there. I'm going to start somewhere else. I'm going to start with the Toyota RAV4. The Toyota RAV4, which was owned by Teresa Halbach, which was discovered on the 5th of November, at the Avery Salvage Property, is less dramatic, it's a less dramatic place to start, than those other moments in time that I talked about. But it's equally important.

Because the discovery of that RAV4, the discovery of Teresa Halbach's vehicle, changed the course of not only this case, but the clues and the secrets found in that vehicle changed the lives of everybody in this room. Look around, everybody.

The clues found in that vehicle, on the 5th of November, changed everybody's lives, yours included. Your lives will never be the same, ours won't, families won't. That moment is particularly important. And that is where we're going to begin.

This woman, Pam Sturm, of the 60 witnesses -- by the way, I'm going to be helping you remember some of these faces as we go along. I don't expect you to remember 60 people and what they look like. And when I talk about witnesses, I'm going to try to help the jury with some photos to jog your memories.

But on the 5th of November, Pam Sturm and Ryan Hillegas had a conversation. They had a conversation about where should Pam search for Teresa's vehicle. And, importantly, in that conversation, they decided to search the Avery salvage property, the last place where Teresa Halbach was seen alive.

Now, as I mentioned, this case dramatically changes at that moment. This changes from a missing persons investigation to where something horribly bad has happened to Teresa Halbach.

It's also the first opportunity that we hear where we talk about law enforcement bias. And we have heard that a lot from the defense, throughout this case. But the perception or the finding of the vehicle on the Avery property, in fact, the very decision to look for this vehicle on the Avery property, should tell you something. What should it tell you?

Well, if Pam Sturm and Ryan Hillegas can figure it out. If Pam Sturm and Ryan Hillegas, when they talk to each other, say to themselves, you know what, common sense would tell us that the first place that we should look for Teresa was the last place that she was seen alive, that should put a lot of the defense suggestion of law enforcement bias by Mr. Fassbender and Mr. Wiegert, into perspective.

Because you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out that that's where the investigation should start. Pam and Ryan figured that out, when Pam Sturm decided, let's go look at the Avery property for this particular vehicle.

Now, we also remember that Pam's daughter, Nikole, went with her. Nikole, importantly, did some things at the scene. She took the photograph. She realized that the doors were locked. She realized that it was too dark to see inside, or to see any blood inside. She realized that there were no plates on the vehicle. But, importantly, both ladies never took their eyes off of that vehicle until the law enforcements arrived.

Now, photographs that were taken from Pam are important; they are important in this case. It was a camera lent to them by Scott Bloedorn, as we understand. But what we do find is that there were obvious attempts to obscure the view of this car. There's no question that this car was found by the car crusher.

Doesn't take a great leap of interpretation to suggest that Steven Avery intended to crush this car. But you don't have to make that finding in this case. I'm just saying that parenthetically for you. In other words, that where it was located was not an accident. There was no accident where Teresa Halbach's vehicle was located. Think also, if you will, about how important this particular event was, finding this car. Pam Sturm described it as divine intervention, or words to that effect, that it was the hand of God, I think was the term that she said, as to where we should look at the 4,000 cars that were on this property. Pam Sturm looked in that one place. She never would have gotten through all those cars.

But on that Saturday morning, or going into that Saturday afternoon, think of what would have happened if this car wouldn't have been found. Think about what would have happened if this car was crushed, like the other 54 crushed cars that were there. Think of what would happen if the law enforcement officials wouldn't have known that this car was there and this car would have secretly been taken off the property and the blood wouldn't have been found, both Teresa's blood and Steven's blood.

Think how close he got to getting away with that. Pam Sturm doesn't find this car, this case doesn't change at that moment, we may not be standing here today. All right. And that's why that's the important place to start in this case. That's why the investigation changes so dramatically upon the recovery -- excuse me -- and observation of this particular car. All right. That's the first fact.

Usually, when I would talk to a jury, I wouldn't be concerned with things like security issues, but part of the prosecution's job, not only is to present my case, but to dispel any defense suggestions that they have made in this case. I'm not going to identify what the defense has told you is evidence in the case, because evidence has a meaning. Evidence suggests that there were witnesses that said things about it or that there were witnesses that agreed with the questions that the defense gave.

Remember evidence in the case -- excuse me -- evidence is the answers that witnesses give. Evidence aren't the questions that Mr. Buting or Mr. Strang asked. I know this is a little bit of a diversion, but I'm the prosecutor, I get to do this. The questions of witnesses, did you plant evidence in this case, and when witnesses consistently indicate that, no, sir, I did not, that's the evidence.

The evidence is the answer. The evidence isn't the question. Okay. So keep that in mind as not only I go through my closing argument, but as the defense may stand before you and may suggest to you theories, or speculation, or supposition, or maybe what questions they might have asked. But you are also collectively going to have to remember what the answers were, because it's the answers that are the evidence, not the question.

Scene security. Scene security was talked to you by several witnesses. I'm not going to spend a great deal of time, but we know that law enforcement early on, number one, knew the significance of this SUV; number two, knew the -- at least perception of Manitowoc County being involved in the case. But as importantly, number three, knew the importance of something called scene security, of making sure that nobody was allowed to have access to that car. Nobody was going to tamper with the SUV after it had been located.

We first heard from Deputy Pete O'Connor. Deputy O'Connor was the perimeter security guy. Deputy O'Connor, as you recall, and as we come right off of Highway 147, was stationed right at the entrance to the Avery salvage property. Importantly, I guess, not only did he note the people that were leaving and that he stopped, but that Sergeant Orth was the first one to arrive.

And as you might expect, we then called those officers in order of arrival on the scene. When Sergeant Orth said that he got there about 10:59 a.m., that he talked to both of the Sturms, that they were very upset, that they were visibly upset, and they should be, the Sturms knew at that time the significance of what they had found. They knew about their cousin. They knew about where this case was going and where it was going to lead.

And Sergeant Orth testified that his job, when he was on the Avery salvage property, was to protect that particular vehicle. All right. It's called scene security. That's a fancy word for guarding a piece of property, or maintaining the integrity of a piece of evidence in a case. And we heard that he was, really, just a few feet, what would be to the east of the SUV that was located. Remember also, though, that other witnesses, including the Sturms, including some other supervisors, including Calumet County, when they arrive, they never take their eyes off of that particular vehicle. And Sergeant Orth was one of those. Remember his testimony, he said, I didn't take my eyes off that vehicle. Nobody entered that vehicle. Nobody tampered with that vehicle.

We even called witnesses like Lieutenant Todd Hermann who, at the time, provided short breaks for Sergeant Orth. We do that for something called chain of custody, to make sure that even for those couple of minute gaps and Sergeant Orth said, even when I was taking a little break in the staging area, I could still -- I could still see the car. But, again, under the category of lead prosecutor, crossing all of my T's, I wanted you to know, and wanted to make sure that you knew that all the witnesses were called.

We heard from Detective Dave Remiker, several times in the case. But Detective Remiker, who was involved early on, Detective Remiker was, I guess, the lead investigative individual from Manitowoc County, both in the missing persons part of the case, and also in these early stages Detective Remiker, we heard, confirmed the VIN. Remember, confirmed that this was, in fact, Teresa Halbach's car. And you will remember everything that Detective Remiker said to you about that case.

But I want you to think back and I want you to remember Detective Remiker looking. I want you to remember how Detective Remiker told you about scene security. This is a detective, a young detective, but a good detective, a guy who knows his job. A guy who, on the scene, knew the importance of scene security.

Detective Remiker looked at you, without apology, didn't bat an eye, and he told you, nobody entered that vehicle. Remember that? Remember when Detective Remiker told all of you, all of the jurors, that nobody entered that vehicle, because it was so important. Because the integrity, the perception about this case, making sure that nobody was going to tamper with, at that time, his evidence, was an important factor to Detective Remiker.

And when you look at his credibility -- This is the first opportunity I will have to talk about credibility of witnesses. It's not something -- and the judge has instructed you -- not something that you do just as a juror. We do it everyday.

When we listen to lawyers, or when we listen to people who are trying to sell us something, car salesmen, as an example. We weigh their credibility. All right. The car salesman comes up and tells you that this little baby was only driven on Sunday, by a little old lady to church. You might weigh some of those factors into that particular salesman. What's he trying to sell me and why is he trying to sell me that? Does he have any interest in the outcome of what he's saying? Does he have some kind of a bias or does he have some kind of a prejudice?

And, of course he does. And you weigh those kind of factors, not just how they say it, but whether or not they have those -- those influences. You do the same thing as -- it's a little more formalized, but you do the same thing as a juror. It's not just what they say, it's how they say it and were they in a position to know the things that they are talking to you about.

And my suggestion to you, my argument to you, as the lead prosecutor, when the guy who's in charge of the case points to you and looks at you, without apology and emphatically says, nobody, nobody entered that vehicle, and nobody tampered with that vehicle, that's something that you should give great credibility and great weight to.

We finish what's called the chain of custody, or the transfer of -- from Manitowoc to Calumet County, with Sergeant Tyson. You have heard from Sergeant Bill Tyson who completes, if you will, the chain; that is, who watched the vehicle and who took over. And about 3:00, and at least from 3:00 on, we learned, then, that Calumet County takes over.

Calumet County takes over, then, with not just perimeter security, but takes over security of the SUV, of that particular part of the scene. It's the transfer of management control about this case, that's why Calumet County and DCI got involved. Let me just spend a couple minutes about that. Manitowoc County sheriff's deputies were never, never, precluded from being involved in this case. The resources of Manitowoc County law enforcement officers was critical, was crucial. Mr. Fassbender never apologized for that.

And think about why. Because we're in Manitowoc County. It's the Manitowoc County sheriff's deputies that are going to know if we need a wrecker, where are we going to go. If we need some tarps, where are we going to go. If we need some ropes, where are we going to go. If we need some bodies, to do some searching, if we need trained evidence techs, it's a logical place to find them. And that's why Manitowoc County remained involved in this case.

You heard the testimony from Mr. Fassbender, that it was the management decisions, that it was the control decisions, over this particular investigation, that was removed from Manitowoc County. Never, ever, ever, the resources. Never that we couldn't, or shouldn't, use Manitowoc County law enforcement officers. All right.

I hope you all understand that. I hope you understand the difference, then, between decision making, how a case should be directed, and whether or not a Manitowoc County law enforcement officer should have been used in this case.

All right. Fact number three, the vehicle is locked. We learned at this time the weather is worsening, it's getting dark. The Crime Lab is called in. And so our third uncontested fact, my third fact that I want you to consider when deciding this entire case, is something called a recovery process. The SUV recovery.

And for the first time, I guess, we learn, and it's the first example of the diversity of agencies that are involved in this investigative effort, this largest criminal investigation, that we have talked about, of the resources that need to be allocated.

We have civilian searchers, like canine handlers. We have law enforcement officers, like from DCI and Calumet County. We have scientists that are brought in, like people from the Crime Lab. We have, as you heard, other civilians brought in to help, like the wrecker operator, and the tow truck driver, and the driver of the trailer in this recovery effort.

But this is a good place to really kind of get your mind around the expanse of this investigation. And remember, we're an hour into it. We're only an hour into the investigation and already the resources are being called in, because the enormity of this investigative effort is so, so apparent to everybody.

I told you on my opening statement about what I called a four legged hero. That may have overstated Brutus a little bit, but Brutus is certainly a qualified asset that you should be considering in this case. Brutus hit on the SUV. All right. And if the officers didn't have enough suspicion before that particular moment, all right, that should have been, and was, in fact, a very important part of this case.

Because Brutus hitting on the SUV, told the handler, told Julie Cramer, who you have heard from, one very important thing, that either a dead body was still in that particular SUV, or a dead body had been in that SUV. This is another changing moment. It's another time in this investigation where very important, the investigation changes and becomes much more of a criminal investigation, that of a missing person investigation.

We heard about Brutus' search that he did, real methodical kind of search. As I was thinking about it, even though Brutus is a dog, Brutus approached that search much like our law enforcement officers, very methodically, very professionally, and came up with the same kinds of results that our other officers have in this case, as well.

One of the two lead investigators, Tom Fassbender, from the Division of Criminal Investigation, talked to you about the agencies that were involved. I will talk to you about that a little bit later. But mentioned something called resource allocation, putting the teams together for searching all the different properties.

That first night, Mr. Fassbender clearly was in charge of deciding who's going to go into what house and why those people were going to do that. And talked about the search plan. Talked about why Steven Avery was a person of interest. Gave you that obvious answer that everybody is giving you, is because Steven Avery was the last person to see Teresa alive. And Mr. Fassbender knew, that first afternoon, what an overwhelming task this was. He knew what an overwhelming job the coordination of this largest investigative effort was going to include. And, again, without apology, without apology, Mr. Fassbender told you at that early stage, all the early clues pointed to one man.

They pointed to one person, even early on. Who's the last person to see her alive? Where was the vehicle that was found? Was there an attempt by Mr. Avery to lure, or to invite, if you want to use a more polite term, this woman onto the property? It all pointed to one person.

And although Investigator Fassbender said that, he had other irons in the fire, he was looking at other individuals, he was looking at other family members, he was looking at possibly old boyfriends, or people that might have had contact with Teresa, or who else she might have seen that day, Mr. Zipperer, or Mrs. Zipperer, or Mr. Schmitz, or where she might have been going.

And all those things are important. And a law enforcement officer does all those things. But law enforcement officers aren't stupid either. Law enforcement officers understand that when you have limited resources, when there is just so many officers to go around, you better direct your resources to where this thing is likely going.

And that night the likely place that this was going was towards Steven Avery. And so a team was put together to search Steven Avery's trailer, that very first night, on the 5th, subject to a search warrant. Getting ahead of myself just a little bit.

I apologize, because we're still talking about the recovery of the SUV. The scientist, Mr. Ertl, who himself is a DNA analyst, that's what he does during the day. But on weekends, like many other Crime Lab employees, Mr. Ertl volunteers to go on field responses. He volunteers to go to crime scenes and look at evidence and things just like this.

So Mr. Ertl, gave his opinion, gave his expertise to, and opinions to, Mr. Fassbender. Made the decision that because the weather was becoming progressively worse, I think Mr. Ertl used the term dramatic weather had occurred on the evening of the 5th, after he had got there. Mr. Ertl verified, if you remember, and importantly, verified that the vehicle was locked, that all the doors were locked in the vehicle. And decided that although they were going to process the outside of the vehicle, that the real processing of this car was going to take place in Madison.

But the SUV was going to be transported, as it was, to a more pristine type of location, to a place where the climate could be controlled and where they could control the processing of the vehicle. Mr. Ertl also told you that this vehicle was obviously obscured, or attempted to be obscured, you couldn't see it from, as an example, an airplane. Mr. Drumm told you that they couldn't see a car like that from an airplane when they did their air search a day or two before.

Mr. Ertl also told you, and if you remember, we'll to go to a picture of Mr. Ertl who is standing right here with Mr. Fassbender and some other -- one other Crime Lab person. Mr. Ertl told you that, right on the other side, see this, right on the other side of the SUV, running all the way along this ridge, was this berm. Mr. Ertl talked about this being 15 to 20 feet high.

Remember he talked about walking over that particular berm where he -- after he got to the top of it, kind of slid down, or gravity kind of assisted this going down the other side of that berm. That is important, or it may be for you, important, when deciding whether or not somebody knew to put this car here.

It certainly couldn't be driven in from the south. That's the point. All right. The point is that it couldn't be driven into that property unless somebody knew that property, unless who ever put that car there, knew how to get the car into this location. Again, it's near the car crusher. It's near a place where other cars are to be crushed. It's near cars that have been crushed. The 54 cars that we talked about.

But Mr. Ertl's job, primary job, at this location, is to process the outside of the vehicle. But then to get a wrecker, to get a tow assembly set up, and to put this on an enclosed trailer and take to it Madison for processing. And so we move to our next uncontested fact, fact number four. We move our investigation to Madison.

MR. KRATZ: The evidence in this case was that this particular SUV was taken to Madison, that it was taken to a garage in Madison. It was taken to the Crime Lab, where this vehicle could be processed. And we heard from Mr. Groffy and Ms Culhane, and Mr. Riddle. And, in fact, we heard and we'll talk about a fourth individual, Mr. Stahlke, about the processing or the looking at this vehicle in a more controlled environment.

Mr. Groffy testified that after the vehicle was initially looked at, that when the vehicle was open, that Mr. Groffy started photographing. But, importantly, photographing from the outside of the vehicle, not from the inside. And that's why his testimony included that he photographed both on the 6th, that's Sunday, and also on the 7th.

Because on the 6th, Mr. Groffy testified that he photographed from the outside of the vehicle, that he could photograph things where he didn't have to crawl into the vehicle, because he couldn't get the inside shots yet. Didn't want to contaminate the inside of the vehicle and waited for the vehicle to be what's called processed, by the lead individual who was in charge of processing the car. And that was Sherry Culhane.

Now, Ms Culhane has lots and lots of involvement in this particular case. Ms Culhane, you heard, was the unit leader or the unit head of the DNA Section of the Madison Crime Lab. And she was chosen or she assigned herself the responsibility of this case. And it was the unit head, the head of the DNA section who, herself, processed this particular vehicle.

Ms Culhane, as you heard testimony, took some swabs, took some samples of the interior of the vehicle. It's more than just the four pictures that I'm putting up before you, but the swabs of around the ignition area, the swabs of the seats -- excuse me -- the cuttings, as she cut out portions of the seat, I believe the testimony was. Swabs of the CD case, swabs of the back door, and also on the interior of the -- what's called the cargo area of the SUV.

The defense will have an opportunity to present a argument in this case. We heard some questions of some law enforcement officers, about planting evidence. We didn't hear anything about how an officer might plant a stain like this, what's called by Mr. Stahlke, a contact stain, which common sense would tell you requires active bleeding. How stains which require gravity, that is, which require dripping kinds of actions might be planted, how smear or movement kinds of stains might be planted as well.

Now, I say that, again, not for my argument, not at this particular time telling you what the evidence has shown, or is going to show, but I am interested to hear theories of how these things might have actually happened. Mr. Avery's blood is in six different places in this vehicle. Other DNA, that is, without blood being visible, is in yet another, that would be the hood latch on this particular vehicle.

And so the sheer volume, the sheer numbers of places, made this quite a job. Made this processing or the recovery of this evidence quite important, indeed.

We heard from Mr. Riddle, who is primarily a fingerprint guy. And although he didn't obtain any identifiable prints, at least those that were suitable for comparison, Mr. Riddle also had the responsibility of inventorying the car. Mr. Riddle told you about what that means, to inventory a vehicle. And it's the little things that he found, the little things within the inventory that become so important.

Things like the blue lanyard, that was given from Katie Halbach to her sister Teresa. You saw Katie, with the assistance of, I think it was Mr. Wiegert, actually fitting the key assembly, or what's called the fob, right onto this particular lanyard that was given to Teresa.

And I had a sense, and I'm allowed to, and I will argue to you, that that showed where this case fits together. Fits together just like the fob and just like the lanyard that was given.

Now, Nick Stahlke, I told you I was going the talk about, and I'm going to add a little bit of Mr. Stahlke's testimony in at this point, because although an analysis was given, it does fit also into the processing of the vehicle when Mr. Stahlke talked about the blood that was found in the back of the RAV4. This area right here, where Mr. Stahlke said that that was a very identifiable impression to him. Sadly, this is a impression, or an impression, of a individual whose head, whose hair, is soaked with blood. And it leaves an impression. It leaves a stamp, if you will. And you can see that and you may get a chance even to see some photos, close up photos, when you deliberate in this case.

But the point of Mr. Stahlke's testimony was that, how Ms Halbach was laying in the back, that her hair was blood soaked, becomes real important, obviously. Because what we're going to hear about gunshots to the head, what we're going to hear about where Ms Halbach was placed thereafter, when it ties in with Brutus hitting on this particular vehicle, as an individual was either bleeding, or was deceased in this particular SUV, again, becomes very, very important.

Mr. Stahlke also told you the difference between contact and transfer kinds of stains, which Mr. Avery -- the blood attributed to Mr. Avery suggests impact, or what's called projected blood, as if an individual was thrown into the back of the SUV. That was on the back gate, that Mr Stahlke talked about. We'll show you some pictures about that, as if the blood is splattering, or is actually in movement as it hits the side of, or the back gate of, the SUV.

We talked about passive bleeding. Again, those attributed to Mr. Avery; that is, the back passenger seat and also on the front seats where there's droplets, where there's active bleeding that's going on.

Mr. Stahlke also testified, if you recall, that upon his expert opinion, his opinion as a blood spatter expert, and he does this for a living, that this particular stain by the ignition is absolutely consistent with somebody with a cut to the outside of the right hand and turning an ignition, this transfer -- contact transfer stain was absolutely consistent.

Now, the Judge promised you a break and you are going to get one right after fact number five. So I want you to know that I'm not just going to drone on and on. I'm going to provide you a break after this next section. Because you probably, since you have been sitting for about 45 minutes now, probably not more than an hour should go by before you get a break.

Fact number five, we go back to the salvage yard. Fact number five becomes a critical or critically important piece of evidence, the State is referring to as Mr. Avery's burn barrel. And we have heard about the discovery, and the recovery, and the processing of this burn barrel. But all of the aspects of this particular burn barrel, again, become very, very important.

It is important because of the obvious evidentiary value that we have had. But it's also obvious -- or excuse me -- it's also important for what we haven't heard. What we haven't heard about explanations, if you will, about how some of this evidence gets in there. But, again, I'm jumping ahead, I will talk about that in just a moment.

Deputy Siders was the individual that you heard found or discovered the burn barrel on a sweep of an adjoining property of Mr. Avery's on Monday, the 7th of November. Deputy Siders finds the burn barrel with a tire, with the tire rim being inside of the vehicle (sic). And he, as you recall, takes the tire rim out.

Tires, again, you have heard by later witnesses, are accelerants. They can be used to keep a fire going, to keep it certainly going hot enough to destroy, or what should be, destroy most of the things that it comes in contact with.

Deputy Siders, we hear, turns over responsibility for the photography and the taking control of this piece of evidence to Special Agent Kevin Heimerl. Mr. Heimerl takes some pictures of the inside. But even Deputy Siders told you, upon looking in the burn barrel, it was obvious that a Motorola cellphone was inside there, because you could see the M, the very distinctive M from inside of the burn barrel.

Mr. Ertl, again, another one of his responsibilities, later, I think it was at the Calumet County Sheriff's Department, processed the contents of this burn barrel, which was anywhere between a third and a half full. But Mr. Ertl didn't identify those components. He doesn't identify the obvious electronics that are found within. He leaves that to the FBI. Now, Mr. Thomas, although a very young looking individual, is in fact an expert, here to provide you with expert testimony. These components were sent to Virginia. And these components, we heard, were all laid out and were all identified by Mr. Thomas.

When you look at these pictures and you look at the kinds of things that didn't burn, and when I asked Mr. Thomas, what are we looking at here, what's left over, what didn't burn, Mr. Thomas mentioned that the metal didn't burn. He mentioned that the glass didn't burn. And I said, well, what does that leave. I asked him the question, what components aren't here, what aren't we looking at.

Mr. Thomas told you plastic. He said it was the plastic components of the camera, and of the cellphone, and of the PDA, the personal data assistant, that we're missing from this constellation of things.

Mr. Thomas was able to positively identify three specific things, obviously, the cellphone. He talked to you about the large circuit board for the PDA, the Palm Pilot type thing, and also the components for the digital camera, the Canon A310. Didn't just say it was any camera, said it was a Canon A310 digital camera.

I showed you a blow up of this particular exterior of that camera. And it says, you know, PowerShot A310 on it, so you probably don't have to be an expert to determine what kind of camera that was. Not surprisingly, the State tied this up as well, as you might expect. We meticulously, I think, matched the recovered items and showed you that Teresa Halbach owned all of those items. So at least the three items that Mr. Thomas was able to positively identify.

Teresa owned a Motorola V3 RAZR cellphone. She owned a PowerShot A310 digital camera and she owned a Palm Zire 31 PDA. We saw the boxes that Teresa had kept her or had purchased her Palm Pilot. The box that Auto Trader had given her her digital camera in, the Canon PowerShot A310. And you also heard testimony about Teresa owning the Motorola RAZR cellphone, which is a very common kind of cell phone.

But Steven Avery's burn barrel becomes important, not just for what is found in it, but what witnesses, what other citizens, what other people on the property saw on the 31st. One of those people is Blaine Dassey, is the nephew of Steven Avery.

And when considering credibility, you can consider a young man like this sitting in front of his uncle and having to testify against his uncle, and doing the best job that he can, and telling you that he is generally scared of his Uncle Steve, but does the best he can in telling you that he and Brendan Dassey, his brother, get off the bus, sometime between 3:40 and 3:45, everyday.

That on this day, on Halloween, he remembers particularly, while walking home, while coming down their dirt road towards their house, that he saw his Uncle Steve walking from his trailer and putting a bag, a white bag is what he described, a white plastic bag, into an already burning burn barrel. Okay.

So by 3:45 or 3:50 in the afternoon, the State is arguing, Mr. Avery is already getting rid of Teresa Halbach's stuff. The electronics, the phone, the PDA, the digital camera are already being disposed of, they are already being destroyed at that time.

Mr. Dassey, importantly, also testified, and please remember this, before our break, Mr. Dassey testified that the Suzuki and the snowmobile that you see pictures of inside of the garage, on the 31st of October, weren't in the garage, remember that. They weren't inside of the garage as the picture shows. But the 31st, the Suzuki and the snowmobile are on the side of the garage, leaving this garage opened, at least opened to the point where something else can fit into that particular garage.

Brings us to our next witness, who's Mr. Fabian. Mr. Fabian is Earl Avery's friend, that they were rabbit hunting. Mr. Fabian told you that he parked the golf cart, that the burn barrel was already burning, that he smelled the distinct odor of plastic burning at the time, that the smoke was so bad that, although parked in a golf cart to the south or next to the burn barrel, eventually he had to move this golf cart because the smell of burning plastic and the smoke was getting so bad. Mr. Fabian also tells you, at that time, just before dark, he places that just before dark, when the rabbit hunt was just about completed, that Mr. Avery's garage was closed. He couldn't see what was inside of the garage. There isn't any SUV any more. There is nothing to be seen. The garage is closed, but the Suzuki and the snowmobile are on the side of the garage. All right.

So I have given you five so far, five pieces of evidence, five pieces of crucial evidence of the evidence that the State believes is necessary to prove this case, beyond a reasonable doubt.

When you return, after whatever break the Judge may give you, I will conclude, then, with the other pieces of evidence and instruct you, or at least argue to you, what I believe that you should do, after considering all these pieces of evidence.

It's a good time for a break, Judge. Thank you.