7.State’s Closing Argument (Part 2)

MR. KRATZ: I appreciate it. Thank you, Judge.

Fact number six, we talked about the instrumentality of the murder and here we talk about the .22 caliber rifle. Remember both the felon in possession of a firearm charge, the instruction that was given to you, it's not ownership of the weapon, it is possession of. You heard the Judge give you the instruction that it is the exercise of control, especially in an area where an individual would have control of that weapon becomes important.

Mr. Johnson, although a entertaining fellow, also provided important information for the jurors that he certainly knew of the .22 caliber rifle, owned the black powder rifle as well, and knew that they were hanging just a few feet above Mr. Avery's bed. Also knew of the ammunition. We have seen photographs and we have actually seen these rifles.

Let me just tell you, and this goes to Count 3, and this, interestingly, might be the last time I talk about possession of a firearm by a felon. You are to, and you must, consider the fact that the defendant was previously convicted of a felony that element has been proved and we're now just responsible to prove to you whether or not he possessed those firearms.

Either of these weapons are rifles, either of these weapons qualify as weapons for possession of a firearm. We were -- of course, claim in this case that the .22 caliber Marlin not just was, what's called constructively possessed, that is, over an area of which Mr. Avery had control, but we will actually be arguing to you that Mr. Avery handled, held that weapon in his hands, when Ms Halbach was killed.

Some quick testimony, or at least a review of some testimony on these issues. Mr. Tyson, although he didn't seize the guns, observed the guns that first night, on the 5th. Mr. Kucharski is the gentleman who actually seized the weapons on the 6th.

So there was some further evidence about the dogs demeanor being vicious, and that is further testament as to why the burn pit, or the burn area, wasn't searched before it was.

Mr. Austin was kind enough to provide us -- the trooper reconstruction expert was kind enough to provide us with some diagrams and things that have helped us throughout this case. And I think they have been very helpful to the jury.

Deputy Kucharski also, however, found 11 shell casings in the garage on the 6th of November; obviously, in plain view, obviously something that you should consider.

When we move to March, though, when we move to March 1st and 2nd, when there's been additional search warrants being executed on -- in Mr. Avery's garage, an important discovery occurs, that you heard about. And that is, two separate bullets, a bullet up in front here where we have tent number nine, and a bullet underneath this compressor, actually having to move these items by tent number 23, which is the bullet which later we'll find has Teresa's DNA on it.

Remember the different kind of search that this is in March, compared to November when the agents and the officers talked about taking all of this junk and moving it one by one, one piece by one piece, and doing that kind of search. In March, the officers, pursuant to their search warrant, did, in fact, just that.

Mr. Newhouse, we heard from the firearms expert. I think the kind of expert that you might hope and expect to find, from the Crime Lab, talking about shell casing matches and also bullet matches, at least the bullet that had Teresa's DNA on it.

All of these photos and all this evidence is in evidence in this case. The bullets that were taken from Mr. Avery's bedroom, you will be able to see, no pun intended, bear the same letter as those that were identified by Mr. Newhouse. That is, as having been shot from that specific gun, that is, the Marlin Glenfield .22 hanging over Mr. Avery's bed. That's important, that's important stuff, that the shell casings that are found in this case are from that very same weapon.

We heard about the bullet analysis as well, the bullet with the DNA is from that very same weapon. And interestingly and importantly, Mr. Newhouse tells you, to the exclusion of all other weapons. All right. That's the kind of identification that these experts can do, at least the ballistics and firearms experts. And so the .22 caliber bullet is an important fact. Fact number seven, some background information. We will hear, or I'm sure -- I'm sorry, you have heard about the prior Auto Trader contacts, that is, prior contacts, the history between Steve and Teresa. You heard from Mr. Pearce, that she and Mr. Pearce had talked about Ms Halbach already having gone to the Avery property, something of the nature of, you are not going to believe whose photos we were taking. And you heard the testimony of Mr. Pearce about his reminder not to -- generally, reminder not to go into people's homes, or not to have that kind of contact with them.

Ms Pliszka talked about the history, knowing about the history. Ms Pliszka is from Auto Trader; she's the receptionist. And the important part, at least for this part of our argument, is that that photographer, Ms Halbach, had been there on a number of occasions before.

And when Mr. Avery called at 8:12 on the 31st of October, he asked for that same photographer. Although, he didn't use the name Teresa, asked for that same female photographer that had been out there before. Again, although using a different name, although using the name B. Yanda, he specifically was asking for Teresa to come out.

You heard from the supervisor of Auto Trader, Ms Schuster, that Ms Halbach had taken six prior photos at the Avery salvage property. And we put these six photos, early on, into the case, into evidence. You can note on most of the photos, just how close they are in proximity to Mr. Avery's trailer.

These photos, as you heard, were taken, the first on June 20th, and the last on October 10th, of 2005. I think the inference that you also may want to draw on as you think weeks ahead from the presentation of this evidence is, after these photos are taken, after a car goes into Auto Trader Magazine, what's done with it.

You can actually answer that question by some of the other photos that I showed you. What's done with these cars doesn't do Mr. Avery any good, or whoever is selling a car, any good, to leave these items back by Mr. Avery's garage, or back by his trailer.

But after the Auto Trader picture is taken, these items are put up on the corner, what is called the corner by the business property. We know that because of Ms Buchner, Lisa Buchner, when she testified in this case, that she testified that she saw a woman taking pictures of cars that were for sale. And, in fact, we pointed out these two vehicles, the Grand Prix and the Blazer, that Ms Halbach had earlier, or just within the last month or six weeks had taken photographs of.

And, so, when a photo is taken, when it goes into the Auto Trader, and when it has to be sold, it makes sense to put those vehicles up in a place where people will see them. People that are coming into the auto salvage business, people that will drive by, as you remember the overall view of this property, that will drive by those vehicles and might naturally get out and take a picture and they might want to buy that kind of vehicle.

Now, we have also heard, and I will argue, importantly, that the van that Ms Halbach took a picture of, remained in exactly the same location, remained there from the 31st, when Ms Halbach took the picture, at least through the 5th, when the officers took control of the scene.

Now, I'm going to argue and you should ask yourself why, you should ask yourself why, what inference can I draw by that. I will argue that the inference is that Mr. Avery knows that the van is not going in the Auto Trader Magazine. Mr. Avery knows that that picture is never going to make it to Auto Trader, because he's taken the camera and he's burned it. He's put it into the burn barrel.

There is no reason to move the van from its original location near Mr. Avery's property, up towards where the other cars that are for sale on this property. Again, has inferences that you can draw, or that you don't have to draw, but, again, I'm arguing that it's something that you may want to consider, again, to reconcile Ms Buchner's testimony, what she had given.

Fact number eight, we're able to piece together some of the history of Teresa for the 31st. It's what's called a timeline for Teresa Halbach. And we were able to do that through all of these particular witnesses. Ms Pliszka, of course, the 8:12 call for Mr. Avery triggers Ms Pliszka's 9:46 voice message call to Teresa. Remember Ms Pliszka's testimony, again, this is hard, because it's five weeks ago. Her testimony was, she left the voice mail that there's a person who wants you to come out and do a shoot. There is a phone number that's been left.

You will hear later on in my presentation, that at 11:43, Ms Halbach calls that number. It's the voice message that we hear to B. Yanda, to Barb Yanda's house saying, I'm able to come out today and to take that -- to take that call. But it's this 9:46 call, when we're setting the timeline for Teresa, where was she, excuse me, at all these times that become important.

The most, probably, important thing that Ms Pliszka talks about is the call at 2:27, the call to Teresa, which is verified through the phone records that she did receive a telephone call at 2:27, from Auto Trader Magazine. That telephone call from Ms Pliszka, to Ms Halbach, is not so important for talking about trick-or-treating and the things that Dawn Pliszka said that they were talking about, but what came from Teresa's side of that conversation.

Remember the testimony from Dawn Pliszka that Teresa said, I'm on my way to the Avery's. All right. I'm on my way to the Avery's. So at 2:27, this is the best, at least from a timeline standpoint, the best opportunity for you to put these things into place and to determine what time was it that Teresa arrived.

Mr. Remiker, an investigator in this case, testified that, upon searching the residence of Barb Yanda, he came across this particular voice mail: Hello. This is Teresa with Auto Trader Magazine, the photographer. And I'm just giving you a call to let you know that I can come out there today, in the afternoon. And it will probably be around 2:00 or, you know, a little later. If you could, please, give me a call back and let me know if that will work for you, because I don't have your address or anything. So I can't stop by without getting a call back from you. And my cellphone is 737-4731. Again, that's Teresa, 920-737-4731. Thank you.

Other than the obvious impact that that call has, it has substantial evidentiary value. That call from Teresa talks about when she's coming out to the property. The call from Teresa says it will be some time after 2:00, or even around 2:30, which turns out to be almost exactly correct.

But she also indicates that, because of the name that was given, because of the number that was called, she doesn't know how to get there because she hasn't been there. Well, that's not true. That's not true, because if Steven Avery would have given his name, Teresa Halbach wouldn't have had to say, I don't know how to get there, or I haven't been out to the property before.

And so the purpose what I argued, or at least what I -- the opening statement that I gave, was that Mr. Avery lured Ms Halbach out to the property, I think is a valid inference for you to draw. But more importantly, it's the timing, more importantly it's when Teresa says through this voice mail message, when it is that she's planning to come to that location.

Mr. Schmitz, at 1:30, testified, we put the rest of the timeline together for you. So at 1:30 we know Teresa is out at the Schmitz property. We know that she's wearing a light colored or a white shirt, a waist length jacket. We know she's wearing jeans. We know she's there for 10 minutes. She leaves an Auto Trader book and she leaves a receipt.

Right after she is done with Mr. Schmitz, she goes to the Zipperer residence, sometime between 2:00 and 2:30. In fact, you will note from the calls and the testimony later from the cellphone people, that at 2:12 a call is made to the Zipperer residence. You heard some reference to that.

It may have been lost in some of the other testimony, about Teresa being lost and on her way. But Teresa finds her way there. And we know that about 2:15 or so, she does her photo shoot at the Zipperer's. We also -- excuse me -- We also know, just like the Schmitz photo shoot, just like every other photo shoot that you have heard testimony about, that it lasts 10 minutes. She leaves an Auto Trader book. She leaves a receipt, which is actually called a bill of sale. These things are particularly important. You will see testimony later, or you will see exhibits later, that were seized from Mr. Avery on the 5th, that exactly the same Auto Trader Magazine is found on his computer. Exactly the same kind of bill of sale is found. So the significance, or the habit, if you will, of these contacts, become critically important.

Ms Schadrie, again, although providing some confusing testimony that had to be cleared up by a Mr. Zimmerman, later, at least provided the records, at least provided what has been received as Exhibit No. 361, the cellphone records for Teresa Halbach.

Ms Schadrie provides some important parts of this particular record. Specifically, at 11:43, that was the call to Barb Janda's that you heard about. The answering machine call that was made.

You have heard about the call from -- at 2:27, from Ms Pliszka, I'm on my way to the Avery's. And we have heard about -- or the records reflect this last call at 2:41.

Now, the testimony, you have to next turn to the testimony of Mr. Zimmerman, Exhibit No. 372. And although that call starts at 2:41, it's a voice mail. And on page two of document 372, page two of this exhibit, we learned, importantly, this incoming call to Teresa is never retrieved. It's never retrieved by Teresa. All right.

Look at Teresa, how many times she checks her voice mail. Mike Halbach talked about Teresa Halbach being very conscientious about checking her voice mail. And after, sometime after her visit, assuming she wasn't harmed or killed by Mr. Avery, you would have expected her to check her voice mail.

Mr. Zimmerman also cleared it up and said that after 2:41, on the 31st, this particular cellphone, the cellphone of our victim, Ms Halbach, was out of service. Wasn't used after that particular point.

Remember the testimony that by 3:30 a bag of something is being placed in the burn barrel where this particular phone is later found. It all starts to make sense now. It all starts to be put together. Again, the combination of observations of Blaine Dassey, combination of phone records, combination of explanation of voice mails, combination of testimony from Mike Halbach.

You put all of that together and it paints the picture for you. It provides the timeline for you, for Teresa Halbach, not just what happens to her phone, but by inference, what happens to her, and when, when it's happening to her. All right.

We talked more about the timeline and we heard from Bobby Dassey, again, in the same kind of a position to be -- his credibility to be weighed by you, but is an eyewitness. Again, an eyewitness without any bias. It is a individual that deserves to be given a lot of credit. Because sometime between 2:30 and 2:45 he sees Teresa Halbach. He sees her taking photographs. He sees her finishing the photo shoot. And he sees her walking up towards Uncle Steve's trailer.

Now, we heard about taking a shower. And we heard about him leaving for hunting. That all becomes important and becomes more important when, after leaving for hunting, he sees Teresa's SUV still parked next to the van, next to his mom's van that's for sale, but Teresa is nowhere to be found. All right.

If this event, if a photo shoot is only supposed to take between five and 10 minutes, and you see the habit, and you see that that's how long that it does take, this is a longer period of time. Teresa, although we don't know, that is, we don't have an eyewitness seeing her going into Mr. Avery's trailer, that's the inference that the State is asking you to draw. She's walking towards the trailer. She's walking towards Mr. Avery's property, after doing the photo shoot.

Mr. Dassey is looking out this window, a clear view, sees the pictures being taken of the SUV, a clear pathway, and that as she walks towards Mr. Avery's, that's the last Ms Halbach is seen. That's the last she's seen alive. All right. So that's the timeline. That's the pathway, if you will, towards what happens to Ms Halbach.

Now, the State has done the same thing with Mr. Avery's timeline; that is, through conversations and through observations, the same thing with Mr. Avery, from the other side of the coin, if you will, what's Mr. Avery doing on the 31st of October. We hear, at least, at 8:12, Mr. Avery is making a call asking for that same female photographer to come out and visit him at his property; although, he uses a different -- a different name. And from a timing standpoint, although we don't have Mr. Avery on the phone, we do have Teresa on the phone.

But Ms Dohrwardt helps, from that perspective. Ms Dohrwardt, who is a witness for Cellcom, Mr. Avery's cell provider, provided you with those records and provided you with testimony of those records. She's a tech support person. She's a technical individual who can tell you more about those calls. Told you about the 8:12 call, but also these two important calls to Teresa Halbach's cellphone, using what's called the *67, or blocked feature, where the recipient of that call can't tell who it is that's calling.

The State is calling the 4:35 call a alibi call, if you will. After her phone is already burned. After Mr. Avery knows that the phone is out of service, which is reflected in what you saw, not only by Mr. Zimmerman's testimony, but by also -- by the records there's no reason to call her phone. He knows where her phone is.

Mr. Avery knows where Teresa's phone is, but Mr. Avery is also -- has the ability to think ahead, has the ability to know that these phone records may, in fact, be gleaned, or may, in fact, be reviewed at some point in the future. And so, although he doesn't block, because there is no reason to block the 4:35 call, he still calls Teresa Halbach. And you can see, or you can ask for those records if you need to.

The rest of the application, or putting together of Mr. Avery's timeline comes from eyewitnesses, comes from people like Blaine Dassey, at 3:45, seeing him in the burn barrel (sic). You have to skip ahead, I guess, to about 11:00, when he sees that image that I talked about, where he sees this large fire behind Uncle Steve's garage. Again, the date of the fire, the time of the fire, becomes ever so important.

There shouldn't be any question, at least, any more, at this time, regarding the place of the investigation, or the direction of the investigation. Blaine certainly adds to that.

Mr. Fabian provides nothing other than around at dusk, plastic is being burned and he sees that.

But Mr. Tadych, who at the time was the boyfriend, is now the husband, of Barb Janda, provides testimony that between 7:00 and 7:30, the fire is already going. Mr. Avery already has a large fire. Again, the testimony was flames above the garage roof, already has a big fire going at that particular time.

The State will argue and we'll ask you to adopt the inference, that between 7:30 and 7:45, Teresa Halbach is already killed. We know that because Mr. Avery is planning to, or in the process, after dark, which is between 7:30 and 7:45, of destroying, mutilating and burning her body.

Fact number 10, although the fire is included in the aspect of the timeline for Mr. Avery, I have made Item No. 10 or fact number 10, it's own fact. These two witnesses, again, I just wanted to reiterate, from Mr. Tadych, in a position of where he is parked, remember his testimony, that he was parked in the circle drive and could clearly see the fire at the time. And the same thing from Blaine Dassey at 11:00, after he gets back from trick-or-treating, there isn't any obstruction to the view of that particular fire.

Remember the later evidence, as to the amount of time that's necessary to destroy, or to cremate a body. This is going to come later, from some experts in the testimony, or at least when we talk about that later. But at or about 1600 degrees, which actually was the defense expert, Mr. Fairgrieve, when talking about BTUs and 300,000 BTUs per average tire.

That's the amount of heat that's thrown off by a tire. Plenty of fuel, plenty of solid fuel to burn, or incinerate, or cremate a human body, that that would take between an hour and a half and two and a half hours, at that 1600 degree level. If it starts at, the very latest, 7:30 or 7:45, and it's still going at 11:00, that's plenty of time. That's an amount of time, through the timeline, and through the fire, and through a combination of witnesses, for you, the jury, to conclude that, in fact, that body was incinerated, was mutilated, was cremated. As a way, and for the reason, to hide a crime that had already been committed. The crime is obvious, it's a crime of homicide. After the burning event, we ask ourselves what's left, what's in the burn area. And we talk now about some highly specialized experts. We talked about, and we hear from, Mr. Sturdivant, who's an arson investigator who found the zipper, which I guess is important.

But more importantly, he found the bones, the small bone fragments intertwined, or mixed in with the steel belt from tires. All right. The bones being intertwined and mixed in is the State's, or one of the State's, strongest argument for this being the primary burn site.

Mr. Sturdivant also talked about the dog being vicious. This particular picture, I think it's Exhibit No. 50, is probably all you need to see. It's all you need to know as to why officers were reluctant to kind of check out and investigate this particular area.

This dog, whose name is Bear, we heard, who's a German Shepherd, we heard being described as vicious, who Deputy Kucharski said the only way they could get by that dog was to destroy or to kill the dog. Certainly was guarding or had access to this entire area. Not only does the testimony prove that, but this particular photo, before any excavation, before any processing, which is obvious has been done, has occurred.

Mr. Ertl, we heard, was the first Crime Lab person with Mr. Sturdivant to get, on the 8th, to that burn area. And, importantly, we heard about the careful processing, that he did his best. Although a shovel was used, it wasn't a, I think the word, the term "scoop and swoop", wasn't that at all. It was very carefully done to recover what the agents could at the time in order to get those items to the Crime Lab, to determine, first of all, are they human; secondly, are they female; and, thirdly, do they belong to our victim.

We need to know those things, obviously, at the time. And photographs that were shown to Mr. Ertl, and as you have seen these photographs, the car seat that was used as additional fuel in this case. The tires you will see, a hose, and you will see rakes, and you will see shovels, and other instrumentalities, what I call, at least, are instrumentalities of mutilation, that is, tending the fire, or without being particularly insensitive, chopping up the remains of the body as it's being burned, to make sure that a total consumption occurs in these cases. You will be able to see some of those exhibits to show that that was in fact done.

Mr. Pevytoe, we hear later, DCR -- DCI agent who, on the 10th, takes over the processing of the burn area, does a more detailed examination; here's where we hear the word excavation, does a couple of things. First of all, we hear that on the 9th and 10th he talks to the anthropologist. He talks to Leslie Eisenberg. He gets some information from Ms Eisenberg as to the processing of the scene.

Mr. Pevytoe, as you heard, however, also recalled that the bone fragments were intertwined with the steel belts and, I believe, rendered similar opinions as to the primary burn site. Mr. Pevytoe also eliminates other burn locations. Mr. Pevytoe's opinion about the smelter and about the wood burner, whatever that may have had to do with, on another part of the property, looked in both, crawled up in, put his hands in, moved things around. Didn't find any human remains. Didn't find anything at all that would suggest that that was a primary burn area.

And so who's involved, of the individuals that law enforcement is supposed to focus on, who's involved in the mutilation process, who's involved in covering up the homicide. Again, common sense should come into play here, you don't leave that on the steps when you walk into the courtroom. When the burn area is directly behind Mr. Avery's garage, when it's only a few feet from Mr. Avery's trailer, that's the kind of common sense that you should and can use in this case. Again, the evidence keeps pointing only to one individual.

Additional processing after the fact, that is, after the items are recovered, occur by DCI agents and Ms Eisenberg, the anthropologist, the doctor. Here is Mr. Heimerl, they find five of the six Daisy Fuentes rivets. Demonstratively, we had these jeans purchased for you so that you can look at where the Daisy Fuentes rivets are located. These are rivets that hold blue jeans, dress type blue jeans that Katie Halbach indicated not only was the kind of blue jeans that Ms Halbach owned, but after Ms Halbach's death, remember, weren't there. They looked for them, those are the pair of jeans, that is, the Daisy Fuentes jeans, are the ones that are gone.

So what does that mean, five rivets are found that say Daisy Fuentes on it. They are mixed in with the human fragments. The inference, of course, is that those jeans, the clothing of Ms Halbach, are burned at exactly the same time. There is a picture of Katie.

And, again, the credibility that her testimony should be given, I think, is very, very high. They are sisters. Katie knows the kind of clothes. She knew, in fact, made fun of these being old person jeans that her sister had purchased, showed them when she purchased the Daisy Fuentes jeans, would know, and, in fact, was asked to and did look for those jeans, they were missing.

We also need to identify the remains. We need to identify who is the person that was burned, who is this individual. We have heard testimony that it was just one person, that it's only talking about one person. But we still have to, although, we can guess I suppose, or speculate, that it's Teresa Halbach. We have to show you, through evidence, that it's Teresa Halbach.

We first do that through Dr. Donald Simley. Mr. Simley, although unwilling because of his scientist nature, make 100 percent match, used these words, it's as close to a positive match as you can get, using one tooth. Dr. Simley talked about tooth No. 31, from Ms Halbach's dentist, Dr. Krupka, having been received.

Here's a blow up of that particular tooth. And here is an x-ray of this particular structure that was recovered from the burn area, the fragmented and delicate, what Dr. Eisenberg talked about were, dental structures. You can look for yourself as to the similarities, Dr. Simley's used in disaster relief efforts and disaster kind of identifications and I think can help you with that particular process.

The charred remains, one piece of bone and tissue was recovered. One piece. One piece was not completely burned up, was not completely charred, to the point where a nuclear identification by Ms Culhane could be made.

And although she made a partial profile, that is, in 7 -- they are called loci -- 7 of the 13 areas that all labs look for to make a positive match, 7 out of 7 match was made. She gave you the frequency number, if you recall, that being one in a billion, that's with a B, that an individual would randomly have this -- this DNA.

So the State believes, and the State argues, that there isn't any question that it is, in fact, Teresa Halbach, and her bones, and her remains, and her teeth, that are recovered just a few feet behind Mr. Avery's garage and trailer.

Leslie Eisenberg, the State argues, is an amazing expert, an amazing person, one of only a handful of Board Certified Forensic Anthropologists in the entire country. She happens to live here in Wisconsin.

Leslie Eisenberg, you heard, was brought on early in the case. And she says a lot about this case and says a lot about what is important. Her expertise, again, she talks about being one of these people that goes to disaster scenes and helps make these identifications.

But she didn't just look at some pictures or some reports, she was actually involved in the sifting and the sorting of these bones. She was handling these bones. You could tell how fragile they were, how very delicate some of the dental structures was.

She was able to identify these bones as having come from an adult female, no older than age 35, believing -- or excuse me, finds these entrance wounds, that we'll talk about in just a minute, that happened before the burning episode.

Dr. Eisenberg testified there was a clear attempt to obscure the identity of an individual. By the way, that's evidence, that's an opinion, that's important to the mutilation count. All right.

Obstructing or obscuring the identity for the purpose of covering up a crime, is the essence of mutilation of a corpse. And that was the testimony of Dr. Eisenberg. Importantly, though, Dr. Eisenberg, because she saw all of these bones, because she was involved for such a long period of time, was able to render the opinion that the primary burn area, the primary burn site was behind Mr. Avery's garage. And, again, talked about, or commented on the great take -- care taken by arson agents in the recovery of these bones.

Dr. Eisenberg goes through the labor intensive method of the recovery of these particles and pieces of bone, puts them together again, as to the face, as to some of the other areas of Ms Halbach and then able, again, with the assistance of Mr. Austin, is able to show you just from where those pieces come, on diagrams, or on skeletons, or on diagrams -- excuse me -- of human skeletons.

What she also tells you, is that every bone, at least a part of every major bone group has been recovered from the burn area, from that which is behind Steven Avery's garage. And that's this exhibit up on -- up on the right. All of those bones, or at least portions of everyone of those bones identified, comes from Mr. Avery's burn area. We hear about the -- what she calls defects or damage to an area, just above Ms Halbach's left ear, to that just behind and to the left of Ms Halbach's skull as well.

Judge, I will have to alert you that I do probably have perhaps a half an hour or so of my closing left to give. I know that we got a late start. I know that lunch was being brought at this time. I'm happy to give it afterwards, I don't have any problem with that, but I wanted to give the Court at least an opportunity --

MR. KRATZ: Thank you, Judge. Is the volume okay with the Court; I assume it's okay.

We're going to break one rule today never give an important speech after lunch it's a difficult thing to do. I will try to get through the rest of my closing in a manner that makes the most sense. And I beg your indulgence as to how important this is, to allow me to talk about our remaining several facts.

Dr. Eisenberg, just to review our transition, talked about two gunshot wounds to the head of Teresa Halbach. Remember her testimony, that it was before burning, that this was a pre-burning event, gunshot events. She knows exactly where. That speaks to Dr. Eisenberg's quality, as far as an anthropologist, forensic anthropologist, at that, and to something I think that you should give, obviously, great weight to. Our next important fact, what I believe, although Dr. Eisenberg was a extremely important witness, may well be the State's most important scientific evidence.

And that's the DNA part of the case. Sherry Culhane from the Crime Lab was the State's DNA expert. And you learned what DNA was. You learned that it was a genetic fingerprint and, importantly, you learned that it is in every fluid in our bodies, in every tissue in our bodies.

And it's the same, that is, it never changes. Never changes, not only throughout our body, but never changes throughout our lives and so DNA is stubborn as well. I talked about the fact that it's stubborn; DNA is stubborn in that sense in that it doesn't change.

Sherry Culhane, the Crime Lab analyst, a great deal was said about her. And, again, you are going to have to weigh the credibility of Ms Culhane. Either Ms Culhane doesn't know what she's talking about, or Ms Culhane is a very talented scientist, very talented DNA expert.

Ms Culhane, I will remind you her testimony, was in 2003, the analyst that tested the single sample, the single hair that exonerated Mr. Avery. That Ms Culhane's talent in examining one hair was able, quite properly to, through DNA evidence, because it's so stubborn, because it's so reliable, was able to, this woman was able to have Mr. Avery released, with the other parts of that case as well. But the analyst was, in fact, Ms Culhane.

She testified in this case, however, that she received samples, that it was the most samples ever sent to the Crime Lab for analysis. It was the most DNA requests, 180, ever made to a single analyst, on a single case.

And despite their backlog, you heard how Ms analyst -- excuse me, how Ms Culhane set aside her other work and got results, quality results, to the State, to the investigators, in a time when it mattered; in a time when the officers needed to know whose DNA matched; whether we're talking about female blood or male blood; and in a time when Mr. Fassbender and Mr. Wiegert could refocus or direct their investigation. That's important.

It's important in a case like this and, actually, it's reassuring to know that our Crime Lab, our Wisconsin Crime Lab, we can take pride in. We can take pride in the fact that such an important case and an important investigative responsibility and need was met, by Ms Culhane.

Again, she processed the vehicle, starting on the 7th, developed DNA profiles, as you heard on, not all 180 samples, I don't mean to mislead at all. But she received 180 and developed many, many, many profiles, all the exemplars, all of the evidence samples in this case, and then compared the profiles of the evidence samples to what are called known samples, or exemplars. We're going to go through her findings because they are so critically important in this case and, again, the State will argue that this is a very talented lab analyst.

Again, she's the head of the unit. She's the head of the DNA Unit for the Wisconsin Crime Lab in Madison. Her experience should speak for itself and, certainly, the quality work that she had done within human boundaries should speak as well.

We first start with Teresa, start with Teresa Halbach's DNA. And what we start with is a known sample, her Pap smear. You heard about, at Bellin Health, that Ms Halbach, a couple years ago, had a Pap smear done and that was used as the standard they need because we don't have a live person to take a cheek, or a buccal swab from, or even a blood sample from. We need something that we know is Teresa Halbach. And the best sample, you heard, was this Pap smear and this analysis and profile is developed. All of these different markers, as you heard, are different places on a strand of DNA that analysts are trained to look. And they, in fact, do look for and assign values, or actually the machine that's used assigns values at each of those places. And what's important, and what you heard Mr. Gahn ask Ms Culhane to explain for you, as best that we can understand, is that all of these different locations, there are a whole bunch of different profiles that are possible. You heard, at least some examples of, at the D3S13 location, you know, how many variations. This is a 16/18 profile, but how many possibilities are there.

And I'm not going to reiterate all of that testimony because you took good notes about that, I'm sure. But what's important is that each of these is different. They are unique to an individual, or at least this entire profile is unique to an individual. In other words, there's one, absent identical twins, which didn't come up in this case and isn't part of this case, I add that just out of intellectual integrity, but other than identical twins, no two people share the same DNA profile.

No two people, not brothers, not son and daughter, nobody shares the same nuclear DNA profile. And that's why it's so important. That's why it is so discriminating, as far as who does this belong to. You can take known samples, then, and you can test them about -- or with evidence samples. All right.

So the evidence samples of, in this case, Exhibit A, those are all of the different evidence samples, including the swabs that were taken from the back of the RAV4, the back tailgate, and the actual door itself that Mr. Stahlke talked about the flying blood, the blood spatter analysis, the saliva or the swab taken from the Pepsi can. That's all evidence that Ms Culhane developed and, again, compared to this known -- excuse me, this known sample.

And so all of those blood samples, and A-14 is the Pepsi can, they all developed exactly the same. It's called a full profile, this isn't the seven out of seven partial profile. At all 15 different locations a pattern, a analysis, is developed for these unknown -- these unknown samples.

And as Ms Culhane talked about, for all the different bloodstains and Pepsi can, she was able to compare, as you can, the results from the RAV4 samples, to the known Pap smear, to Teresa Halbach. And it is a perfect match, 15 out of 15 exactly, exactly a perfect match.

The blood or bullet fragment, which is recovered on the 2nd, same thing is done with that, you heard about the extraction process of having to wash the DNA off of the bullet, but it was able to provide a profile by which a match can be made, or an attempted match can be made.

Remember that bullet that was found by Mr. Heimerl, later processed and later developed. And Ms Culhane, then, is able to make that comparison. And although the item has, in two separate locations, one of the values or the spikes, it is not at all inconsistent with the results. And so Ms Culhane says that is insignificant as far as -- as the match.

Now, as you have heard, there is, not in the bullet, not in the bullet extract itself, not in the evidence, but in a control sample, in a -- what I understand to be a tube of some solution, water, some saline, something, that's supposed to have nothing on it, Ms Culhane's own DNA shows up on that particular run, on that particular sample. And she called that, quite appropriately, contamination.

And that's a hard word for jurors, I believe, at least I argue, to understand. But as Mr. Gahn and Ms Culhane talked about contamination, that that's expected, especially in cases with this kind of volume. It's happened 89 separate times, unfortunately. This is one of the cases that it happened.

But because it wasn't on the bullet, because it wasn't on the piece of evidence itself, Ms Culhane testified, and you can believe her or not, but this expert witness testified that it does nothing for the comparison purposes. It does nothing to diminish whether or not Teresa Halbach's DNA is on that bullet.

And stated another way, the fact that Sherry's DNA is on some water or some control somewhere should not, and in fact in this case, did not, keep from you, the jurors, the fact finders in the case, whether or not Teresa Halbach's DNA is on the bullet. All right. That's important evidence. You would want to know that. You would want to know whether or not Teresa Halbach's DNA is on this bullet, this bullet that's found in the garage, in Steven Avery's garage, is Teresa's DNA.

And as Ms Culhane said, there isn't anything that can change one person's DNA into another. There is no process, there is no trickery, there's nothing that can go on that can convert, if you will, somebody else's, in this case Sherry's, DNA, into Teresa's. Teresa's DNA is on the bullet.

It is your decision and your duty to decide how much, how little, weight, to give to the contamination on the control sample, again, a sample that has nothing to do with this particular bullet. Again, another match.

And the frequency, and what we're talking about with all of these matches, and not just these, but also the seven out of seven that we talked about before, although one in a billion, the frequency of all of these blood and saliva matches for our victim, for Teresa, is you would expect to find that DNA profile that we just saw, at random, one time in every 416 quadrillion times in the Caucasian population.

Well, that's a number that's so big that many of us, most of us, don't really have a good concept about. It's a lot, it's a lot of zeros. Okay. And it is a number that you can call that an exact match. All right. An exact match.

When we talked about 6 billion people or so in the world, 6 billion only, and this is a quadrillion, lots and lots more. We're going to talk about quintillions next. But we're talking about such big numbers that it is absolutely -- has no impact on the results.

But more than that, what does this mean? What does -- what does finding Teresa Halbach's DNA mean, in this case? And where was it found? Because DNA can't change, because DNA is so stubborn, because DNA is what DNA is, I told you at the opening statement, that I'm going to reiterate now, that Teresa Halbach cries out to you, the jurors, at this case. And it tells you to listen and to look.

Teresa Halbach, by her DNA and where it's found, is telling you a story. She's telling you, this is where I was. She's telling you, this is what happened to me. She's telling you, this is how I was killed. She's telling you, this is how this person tried to hide me and where they tried to hide me.

And it's the kind of evidence, it's the kind of powerful evidence that you can't ignore. I told you at the opening statement and I'm telling you now, that Teresa Halbach left this evidence for you to see, and left this evidence for you to hear, to hear about this evidence. And I simply hope that this evidence has that impact, that you can see where she was; you can see where her body was placed; you can see how she was killed, in this case; not through speculation, not through guesswork, but by scientific evidence.

Mr. Avery's DNA is also collected. And the stubbornness about DNA applies to Mr. Avery's DNA, just like it does to a victim of a crime. Blood that's left behind, in this case, is evidence; it's evidence against Mr. Avery. It's important evidence, very, very important evidence because DNA doesn't forget.

DNA kinds of evidence can't be confused, it can't be tricked on cross-examination. DNA evidence is what it is. And only through human failure, failure to collect it properly, or failure to analyze it properly, or failure on my part to explain it properly to the jury, is the limitation of DNA evidence.

Because the DNA evidence in this case is incredibly powerful. You heard testimony that Mr. Avery had a cut to his hand. Had a cut to the outside of his right hand, what we're calling the source of Mr. Avery's blood. This is how Mr. Avery leaves those six different blood samples within the SUV.

And from a prosecutor's standpoint, it's fortunate to have that kind of evidence. It's fortunate to be able to stand up here and tell a story, to be able to tell you that story from Steven Avery. Because just like the victim, just like Ms Halbach's DNA telling you, here is where I was, and here's what happened to me, and here's how I was killed, Mr. Avery's blood tells a story as well. Now, we don't have the same kind of standards used for Mr. Avery. We have what's called a buccal swab, a cheek -- kind of a Q-tip that's placed in his cheek. By the way, this is the same kind of test Ms Culhane said was used in Mr. Avery's exoneration, a buccal swab. You saw that they were still sealed in the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department, after they were used, analyzed and sent back.

But the Crime Lab never had Mr. Avery's blood sample, it was all used through, as you hear it is now days, through buccal swabs, through standards. And the standard for Mr. Avery, just like for Ms Halbach, is developed at all 15 of these different locations that are called loci, for Mr. Avery.

So what Ms Halbach (sic) does, then, is she does test samples of different swabs, or different swatches, or different things that there are to analyze. She develops DNA profiles for the hood latch. And you are able to see, then, that the -- although not blood, no visible blood available, you heard about from handling a hood latch or a piece of metal, that depending how much your hands sweat, skin cells and other manners of DNA can be transferred onto a hood latch.

Well, it was, in this case. On this hood latch, Mr. Avery's DNA, on the Teresa Halbach SUV. Reaching underneath the hood, is Mr. Avery's DNA; an exact, perfect profile of Mr. Avery's DNA, that does not include, at least visibly, his blood.

Well, the same kind of analysis is done on this Toyota key. And you will see the analysis, the Toyota key, the evidence is analyzed. And you will see that right down the line, all 15 places, it's a perfect match for that of Steven Avery. And, again, you heard that by handling a key and, importantly, the last person to handle the key is the most likely source of the DNA that's going to be found on that particular piece of evidence.

That was the testimony, that was the testimony in this case. Mr. Avery was the last person to handle this key. This key is the key for Teresa Halbach's vehicle. This key, found in Mr. Avery's bedroom, has a full, a complete, a 15 out of 15 match for Mr. Avery's DNA. That is significant evidence.

We then talk about the blood and the other stains that are found within the SUV. The other five places in the front part: The driver's seat; front console; the ignition area; which is perhaps the most damning of all of the DNA that's found; passenger seat; and the CD case.

Now, each of these locations, Ms Culhane is able to develop a profile on, a full 15 out of 15 profile, on these bloodstains. So these aren't small bloodstains. These aren't one microliter as you heard later in the trial about. These are large bloodstains, a drop, as you heard, one droplet of blood is 50 microliters. And so these stains, although we do have a one droplet stain of Teresa's, all of these stains are much, much larger than that.

So, in the front, that is, from the front seats forward, five different bloodstains left by Mr. Avery in Teresa Halbach's vehicle. Again, we're pointing to one person being responsible for Ms Halbach's death.

In the rear, that is, on the rear passenger door, that bloodstain is left. And we hear that it is, in fact, Steven Avery's; again, a perfect match for Steven Avery.

Now, each stain, Ms Culhane testified, she's able to develop a frequency. Again, how likely is it in the Caucasian population that you would find, randomly, that exact DNA profile. And she said one in four quintillion. Okay.

This is a number that is absolutely huge. People can't even really picture how much a billion is, finding a billion, one thing in a billion. Finding one thing in a billion is -- is hard enough, but I'm going to take 45 seconds and I'm going to tell you what a billion is. All right.

To get to a billion, you first have to know what one out of a hundred is. Pick up 1 white marble and think of 99 black marbles. Can you picture that? You put them together, and if you randomly drew the one white marble out, it would be one out of a hundred. Well, if you take five times that, you're 1 out of 500, 1 white marble in 5 -- 499, 500, if you will, black marbles.

Would be like a shovelful or a coal shovelful of marbles and you kind of throw them out onto the floor. One of them is going to be white and the other 500 are going to be black. And that's 1 out of 500 black marbles. Okay. You can kind of picture 1 out of 500. A billion is such a big number, that if every day, let's say you had a reservoir of black marbles and you had one white marble in there. All right. And every hour, every hour, of every day, you took your coal shovel and you got out 500 marbles and you threw them onto the floor and you said, is there a white marble there. To randomly look for that match. And you don't see it.

And then the next hour comes and you do the same thing. Every hour of every day. Let's say that you had the time to do that and you had a big enough reservoir, here's how big a billion is. To find one white marble out of a billion, you would have to do this 500 marble exercise every hour, of every day. And you would expect, at random, you would expect, at random, to find that white marble -- are you ready for this -- right about the time that Thomas Jefferson was signing the Declaration of Independence. If you did it every hour, of every day, 500 marbles each, that's how often you would have to go to get to a billion, to get to one out of a billion, one white marble out of a billion black marbles.

That's a partial profile that we're talking about. That's the numbers that we're talking about, you need to visualize something. Well, four quintillion, four quintillion, a quintillion -- I hope you get this -- a quintillion is a million billion, it's a million times more than what I just talked about. A million times you would have to do that with the black marbles going back to the time of the late 1700s. So one in four quintillion, I need you to appreciate the size that we're talking about, the frequency that we're talking about here. All right.

So when Sherry Culhane talks about when we randomly see that same profile, one out of four quintillion times, I hope that at least is a way, something that you can visualize, as to how big of a number that we're talking about.

That leads me to beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt is what do we, the State of Wisconsin, have the obligation to prove in this case. The judge has already instructed you that a reasonable doubt is a doubt for which a reason can be given, from a fair and rational consideration of the evidence.

That means, a fair and rational consideration of all of the evidence. Not just some of it, but considering all of the evidence, do we have a reasonable doubt in this case. Doesn't mean beyond all doubt, in other words, from a percentage standpoint, doesn't mean a hundred percent, because the human system that we have, it's a human justice system. My burden, which I fully accept, in proving the defendant guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, is something that I think, clearly, all of the evidence points to in the case.

I told you at the beginning of the case that there were agencies that were involved. Mr. Fassbender talked about DCI and Calumet County Sheriff's Department and Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department and Manitowoc Police Department, Marinette County, and Two Rivers Police Department, New Holstein Police Department, Brillion Police Department, Kiel Police Department, Manitowoc Sheriff, and FBI, and State Patrol, and all the volunteer firefighters and everybody else pitched in in this case, who did their professional job to find out what happened to Teresa Halbach.

Law enforcement looked at the possibilities, looked at all of the possibilities that were presented to them, submitted results. They didn't know what the results were going to be. They didn't know the evidence was going to come back to Steven Avery, but it did.

They didn't know that the bones were going to come back as matching Teresa Halbach's DNA, but it did. And so when they submit evidence, again, they are not looking for a particular answer, they are just seeing where the answers come. And in this case, as I mentioned, it's all been directed towards one person.

This 25 year old person that I called an amazing young lady, this 25 year old lady was murdered. That's real. All right. That's real for family, and it's real for friends, and it's real for Teresa Halbach. And I'm able to argue to you what that means.

I'm able to argue to you that that means that Teresa Halbach's dreams, and that her potential and her future aspirations were snuffed out by one act, and by one act from one person; her chance to be loved and her chance to love, and -- on the 31st of October. Tom Pearce described this young woman as somebody that he saw great potential in. I think he said the words that she was really going to be someone. I think there's a lot of people in this room who might argue that she already was someone. She already was someone that was very accomplished and somebody that obviously is very missed.

And that brings me to my last fact, brings me to fact number 13, how was Teresa Halbach killed. The manner and cause of death was provided to you by three witnesses. Dr. Eisenberg, Mr. Olson, and Dr. Jentzen. And they all are in concert, they all agree, with how this 25 year old woman was killed.

Dr. Eisenberg testified about those cranial fragments showing entrance defects, again, suggesting gunshot wounds to the parietal and the occipital reason -- regions. The beveling was prior to the burning. The manner of death she described as homicidal violence. I think Dr. Eisenberg, in her own anthropological way, explained to all of you, well, she didn't just jump into the fire, it was homicidal violence that caused her death.

Dr. Eisenberg was able to show you and tell you, through photographs, that the -- this particular bone piece, we wouldn't know it was right above the left ear, but this is a piece of the parietal bone that's right above the left ear, that shows the characteristic sign of an entrance bullet wound. And this particular defect that is shown, again, that we wouldn't know, is the occipital region of the skull, that Teresa was also shot in the back of the head with a .22 caliber gun.

Mr. Olson, our trace metals expert, talks about instrumentality. That is, what are these defects caused by. And Mr. Olson, importantly, talked about lead deposits, talked about bullets, and bullets having 99 percent lead, but was able to show you x-rays of these defects that we talked about, the x-rays of the parietal region, where these things that light up are actually particles of lead, which are characteristic of a bullet, a bullet entering the skull of an individual. And there's many more of them, actually, back in the occipital area, many more of these lead particles that he -- the elemental analysis, and found, in fact, that these were lead.

And, finally, Dr. Jeffrey Jentzen, an expert, perhaps the expert, in the State of Wisconsin, the medical examiner for Milwaukee County Wisconsin, hundreds of gunshot wounds he reviews. He was asked by Mr. Gahn to review this case and see if he could render an opinion as to both the manner and the cause of death.

Dr. Jentzen didn't have any question at all about either one, that there was a gunshot wound to the parietal region, agreeing with Dr. Eisenberg it was a gunshot wound to the back of the head. Manner of death is homicide. Cause of death is gunshot.

There's three charges that you are going to need to consider in this case: Homicide, first-degree intentional homicide; mutilation of a corpse; and the felon in possession. And it's the State's obligation to prove to you several things with those. They are called elements, but what we really have to prove is what, and when, and how, and, finally, who.

What is clear, that a homicide and mutilation occurred. When, the 31st of October, sometime after 2:45 p.m., when Ms Halbach makes contact at the Avery salvage property. How, the doctors and the trace metals and other experts tell you, by gunshot.

And, so, when it comes down to the role of the jury, when it comes down to you as the trier of fact, searching for the truth, not speculating, not searching for doubt, but searching for the truth, it's that last answer. It's the who, that you have to decide.

And you have got to decide whether or not the State has satisfied you, beyond a reasonable doubt, who killed Teresa Halbach. Again, based upon the facts, based upon the evidence, not based upon speculation.

I told you when I first stood up before you this morning, there was no question, no question at least from the State's perspective, who was responsible. And despite having been here for five weeks, I'm hopeful at this time that you are able to agree with the State of Wisconsin that all of the evidence, all of the evidence, points to only one person. All the circumstantial evidence, all the scientific evidence, all the direct evidence, points to one individual. The law enforcement officers have done their duty. All of the citizen searchers and citizens that helped have done theirs. The prosecution team, I believe, has set forth a very methodical, very compelling case. And so we're finally asking you, the citizens -- the jurors in this case, the citizens of Manitowoc County, to return verdicts of guilty, as it is your duty to do so.

That's all I have, Judge, thank you.