3.State Rebuttal Closing Argument by Kenneth Kratz

MR. KRATZ: Thank you, Judge.

This part of the case is the shortest part, that is, the shortest argument, thankfully, but it's also the most difficult, because I have to limit my comments to what the defense has argued. And it's also the part that it's a little bit out of my comfort zone.

As you may have noticed throughout this trial, I have tried to be courteous. I have tried to examine witnesses with the fairness, and the dignity, and the respect for which they deserve in the courtroom. I have tried never to cut off a juror (sic). When a juror (sic) wanted to explain an answer, I tried never to say, stop, I don't want to hear it, or the jury doesn't want to hear what the answer might be. And so this argument is different than that. It's necessarily not as civil. It's necessarily not my style, so I want to say that upfront.

Highly charged statements have been given by the defense in their closing arguments. And it's my responsibility to meet those, hopefully, with compelling argument, the things that you will find important when dismissing or discarding some of what the defense has tried to have you believe here.

I may personally like Mr. Strang, and I may personally like Mr. Buting, but their arguments I most certainly do not like. I think they are unfair. I think they are unfair to you. I think in many instances they have been what's called disingenuous, which means that I don't think that they have been totally truthful. And in all candor towards you, I think they have tried to fool you on a number of occasions.

I have got a job to do. I have got a job to do as the lead prosecutor in this case, to make sure that you are not fooled, to make sure that you aren't sold something that isn't true. And that's what this argument is all about.

The very first argument that Mr. Strang made in the beginning of his opening statement, he made it again in the beginning of his closing statement, and at the end of his closing statement, referenced the 1985 wrongful conviction of that man, Steven Avery.

Steven Avery was wrongfully convicted in 1985. We all understand that. We all believe that. But don't one of you consider anything about that case when deciding the facts of Teresa Halbach. Teresa Halbach, the Halbach family, and the interests of justice deserve that you decide it on this case, not on whether or not Mr. Avery deserves some sympathy, or whether or not Mr. Avery deserves to set it right. That's something for civil lawsuits. That's something for other jurisdictions to deal with and to handle.

It is absolutely improper for Mr. Strang to ask you to, in any way, consider that 1985 lawsuit, when finally coming to a decision in this case, and in Mr. Strang's statement, in his opening statement, to send him home. Sending Mr. Avery home, if that is going to happen, is going to be because the State, the prosecution team, all of the agencies that you heard about, didn't meet its burden, we didn't meet our burden of proof on this case, not because Mr. Avery was convicted in 1985.

Let me also suggest to you that any case this big, especially what we have called the largest criminal investigation. I don't know if it is the largest in state history, but it is certainly the largest that anybody that you have heard of has ever talked about. Any case that big, with that many witnesses, and you have just gotten a sliver of the number of witnesses, and a sliver of the number of exhibits that are available in this case.

Five or six weeks may seem like a long trial. Let me assure you, it could have been a lot, lot longer, if we would have done the kinds of things that Mr. Strang asked us to do. As an example, if we would have followed every what's called "blind alley", if we would have put in what's called "negative evidence"; that is, eliminate everybody who's not even a suspect in this case, which is what law enforcement did. That's their job. That's law enforcement's job.

And then, once we get to the prosecution stage, it is our job to present evidence on who we believe committed the crime. Does everybody understand that? So, if we put in the entire case, if you will, that would certainly be something more than what would be relevant for State of Wisconsin vs. Steven Avery. That's what this case is about, not the '85 case. The very first issue that I want to talk about is perhaps the most problematic for the jurors. I want to address this upfront, because I believe that there were misrepresentations made in the defense closing. I believe they tried to fool you in their closing when they indicate that Mr. Lenk comes in and all of a sudden there's a key there.

Well, that's part of the story, and that, of course, is a true statement. But what the defense neglected, in their closing, to tell you, was everything that Sergeant Colborn told you about this particular investigation. I put these two photos up because I'm calling them the before and the after shot. And I put them next to each other for a very, very important reason, because they say a picture states a thousand words.

This should do that for you, the before and the after picture. These are taken just a couple of minutes apart from each other, but importantly, they are taken before the search, before what Mr. Colborn talked about, not so gently, or never so gently manipulating the cabinet, and then after that had already been accomplished.

A couple of important things to note. First of all, we talked, I think in my closing or in my opening perhaps even, about the slippers, about how you, through your common sense, can reconcile those slippers, that piece of evidence, not just where they are situated with the wall socket there, but you can understand how both this cabinet was pushed to the left, pushing the left slipper over to the left, and pushing the right slipper over and actually flipping the left slipper over. All right.

And then after jostling, and after pushing, and after removing all the books, and after Sergeant Colborn talked about putting those books back in, and I want to get a correct verbiage, "handled them none too gently", a key comes out the back end of this particular cabinet. Now, what hasn't been pointed out to you yet, many of you being observant, may have already noticed the before and the after.

This is the book that they were talking about, that particular binder that was slammed back into the cabinet. The before picture has the binder virtually adjacent, or next to the cabinet itself. The after picture has it several inches back in. Why is that important? Why does that one fact corroborate or lend credence to Sergeant Colborn?

Sergeant Colborn said he slammed that book back, none too gently. You have to kind of envision this cabinet cocked, and the back of the cabinet opened, the book slamming back, and the key falling through that particular cabinet. And so the testimony in connection with all of the physical evidence, and not just what Mr. Strang or Buting might tell you some of the evidence is, where Lieutenant Lenk comes in and says, oh, there's a key, which did happen, but the explanation is absolutely plausible.

But more than that, we're going to need to delve into this key and into this planting issue, whether or not the key was planted. Was the key planted. All right. To get to that supposition, or to get to that conclusion, which really is a supposition, because you are going to have to guess, you have to know some things about Sergeant Lenk -- excuse me -- Lieutenant Lenk, and Sergeant Colborn. You have to know if they are good, honest, decent cops, or if they are not.

Now, we asked some questions, and you can weigh their credibility. And they both appeared indignant about this. They both appeared upset about even being accused of such a thing. And that demeanor, that credibility, is something that you can and you should take into consideration, in fact, when each of them said absolutely not, absolutely not would I ever plant evidence in this case.

But as importantly than that is the lack of evidence. Mr. Strang was allowed, quite properly, to talk about the lack of evidence that the State would have presented. Wouldn't you have expected evidence, is I think the way Mr. Strang had placed it. Well, that works both ways. And subpoena power and power to bring in physical evidence applies equally to the State as it does to the defense.

We know that because the defense has subpoenaed some witnesses. They have brought some witnesses in here. They have subpoenaed some documents, and you have seen those subpoenaed documents in this case. Well, don't you think, folks, that if either Sergeant Colborn or Lieutenant Lenk had a pimple, had a blemish on their record for truthfulness, or for honesty, or for planting evidence, or for doing anything that was opposed to the oath that they took to uphold the law in Manitowoc County, don't you think you would have heard about that. Don't you think that those two good lawyers, excellent, in fact, defense attorneys, would have presented that to you.

So when Mr. Strang tells you to look at the big picture, and when he talks about, let's see how they acted beforehand, beforehand you didn't hear any evidence at all about Mr. Lenk or Mr. Colborn. That is significant. But as significant is the facts and circumstances surrounding this particular bedroom.

And when Mr. Kucharski, Deputy Kucharski, talked about sitting on this bed, and actually facing towards the door, his feet, I think the testimony was, were facing where the key ends up when Lieutenant Lenk exits the room and comes back. Don't you have to kind of ask yourself the question, how did the key get there?

If it was planted, how did that key get there? Did Lieutenant Lenk, as he's walking here, throw it? Did he kind of lob it over Mr. Kucharski. Well, that's ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. And although all three of these officers, and in fact the prosecution team, would have preferred, obviously, that the key wouldn't have been found in this way, it was. All right.

Cases come to you how they are. And again, under the microscope of a case of this magnitude, there is going to be some human factors. And there's going to be some things that you are going to have to wrestle with. And this is one of those things. I'm not going to short change you on that particular case.

And you may take a long time in deciding whether or not that key is significant, or whether the key is not significant. But let me ask you, just kind of for the sake of talking, as Mr. Strang wanted to talk with you rather than at you, I certainly have a style that I would prefer that as well. Let's assume they never found the key. Let's assume this key isn't part of this case at all.

Let's assume Mr. Strang's theory is correct, that these cops aren't trying to plant an innocent person, but trying to make sure that a guilty person is found guilty. Well, can't you then, with that argument, set the key aside? Do you have the ability, as a jury, to set that key aside, if in fact it doesn't matter whether or not Mr. Avery is guilty or not guilty in this analysis? Can you set that aside and decide is there enough other evidence, or is the key the only thing that points to Mr. Avery?

Well, if this was a CSI case, one of those cases on TV where sometimes that key, or sometimes one little piece of evidence like that may decide the guilt or innocence, it would make a difference. But that key, in the big picture, in the big scheme of things here, means very little. All right.

Now, I'm telling you that not because I don't want you to consider it, not because I think that it's not important, or not because the credibility of these officers is in question to the State at all. What I am suggesting, though, is that if you buy Mr. Strang's argument, if you buy Mr. Strang's argument that they were trying to make sure that a guilty person was found guilty, then assigning accountability to the murder for Teresa Halbach, shouldn't matter whether or not that key was planted.

In other words, it shouldn't matter to the Halbach family. You shouldn't be punishing the police officers, in other words, the other officers that were involved in this investigation, if you come to that conclusion. You are not going to. You are not going to come to that conclusion because you have heard nothing about these police officers that they would do such a thing. But my suggestion is simply not to focus all your attention.

In the law, that's called searching for doubt. The Judge has told you, and may even tell you again in your closing instruction, that you are to search for the truth, you are not to search for doubt. In other words, you don't go into this case saying, well, let's look at where all the discrepancies are first. That's the place maybe that we should start, because as my closing argument suggested to you, there's got to be a reason, right. There's got to be a reason that we have been here for five weeks. No, there doesn't. There doesn't have to be a reason why you have been here for five weeks, other than the defendant's constitutional right to a trial. And so the Judge will tell you not to start there. The Judge will tell you not to start at searching for doubt.

The Judge will tell you that the whole process, the beginning of the process, the middle, and the end, is to search for the truth. To search for the truth in this case is who killed Teresa Halbach, not whether or not we can find some discrepancies.

More about the key. Mr. Buting, I believe it was, had the imagination, let's call it, to suggest to you that maybe officers were taking a toothbrush and were kind of rubbing Mr. Avery's toothbrush on the key and that's how the DNA got on the key. Common sense should tell you that these kind of motions, what are called furtive motions, or for lay people, for people like you, it's called suspicious looking things, is something that you should probably discard. Because if they take Mr. Avery's toothbrush and start rubbing it on the key, you know, and then kind of hold it behind their back, that becomes almost cartoonish, that becomes something that is not at all plausible.

But as important, when did that happen, when did they plant the DNA on Mr. Avery's key. Because we're not just talking about planting a key. If it was planting a key, that's damning enough. It's damning enough to have this particular key found in Mr. Avery's bedroom. But what makes it irrefutable is that Mr. Avery's DNA, positive, hundred percent match, is on that key. Right?

And you heard the testimony from Ms Culhane, and perhaps others, that the last person to handle a key or an object is most likely to leave the DNA on the key. Now, Mr. Strang and Mr. Buting have asked you to just discard that, ignore it, ignore that expert opinion. I don't know why they are asking you to do that, because it doesn't fit with their theory of defense. But it's the DNA on the key that has to be planted too. Please understand that. It's not just planting the key, it's planting the DNI -- the DNA on the key as well.

If they planted the key, where did they get the key? Now, that leads to an interesting series of questions as well. There are only two ways that law enforcement can get this key. All right. Because the vehicle was locked, and because on the 5th of November officers don't really have access, as you have seen by the scene security. They had to have access to the key before the 5th.

And so there's only two ways to do that. One, they can kind of stumble across it in a scenario that Mr. Strang suggests, maybe off duty or something like that. Or the last person to hold that key, other than Teresa Halbach, is the person who killed her.

Now, you heard that testimony in this case. It may have drawn an objection, I don't remember right now, use your own collective knowledge as to whether it did. But that makes sense, that the last person, other than Teresa, to hold this key, is the person who killed her. And if that's the case, then you hold these two gentlemen responsible for suggesting that to you.

In other words, despite Mr. Buting standing up here, I think it was the beginning of yesterday, saying, look, folks, we're not saying that the cops killed Teresa Halbach, what we're saying is that somebody else, I think his words were, "skillfully exploited law enforcement bias", as if there's somebody smart enough out there that could do that. We're going to talk about that in just a minute.

But when you go down one layer, when you scrape one layer of this manure off of the topsoil, which is what it is, you scrape one layer, you will realize that the cops had to kill her. The cops had to be involved in killing Teresa Halbach. Now, are you prepared to say that? Are you, as the jury, in order to find Mr. Avery not guilty, willing to say that your cops, that your Manitowoc County Sheriff's deputies, Lieutenant Lenk, Sergeant Colborn, because of Mr. Avery's lawsuit, that Sergeant Colborn and Lieutenant Lenk didn't have a dime of stake in, at least financially, that they weren't involved in in 1985, that they gave a deposition in about receiving a phone call and transferring the phone call, and that's the extent to it, but because of that involvement, are you willing to say that these two otherwise honest cops came across a 25 year old photographer, killed her, mutilated her, burned her bones, all to set up and to frame Mr. Avery. You have got to be willing to say that. You have got to make that leap. Because of this question right there, where did they get the key.

The key isn't alone. The key is attached, at least at some point, to something called a lanyard, something that's around the neck, similar to what you all are wearing as juror badges. We know that that comes from Katie Halbach. We know that that is found inside of Teresa's SUV. And so where one is the other one is. All right.

So I hope that makes sense. I hope you understand that, at least for the first time in my rebuttal, I'm going to be suggesting that you dig down that one further step and understand exactly what these two gentlemen are suggesting to you. Despite Mr. Buting trying to sell you on the fact that we're not saying the cops did it, that's exactly what they are saying. That's exactly what they are arguing to you, and you have to be prepared to go there.

The next time that Mr. Buting tried to fool you was when he told you that the police never checked out other suspects in this case. Well, you heard from Mr. Wiegert, you heard from Mr. Fassbender, more particularly, that other suspects were checked out. But let's think about other suspects. Who were the other suspects in this case? Where was the evidence pointing so strongly, other than to Mr. Avery? Where was it? Where was the evidence pointing?

Well, one choice was, Mr. Schmitz was one of the people that saw Ms Halbach. Mr. Schmitz, as you heard, was interviewed, was checked out, but guess what, folks, Teresa Halbach left that photo shoot alive. That kind of eliminates Mr. Schmitz, doesn't it, from being a suspect in this case.

Number two, was JoEllen Zipperer. And although a nice little old lady like that probably could have killed and mutilated Teresa Halbach, guess what, folks, Teresa Halbach left Mrs. Zipperer alive at about 2:27 p.m.

The third suspect then, or the third logical person, was Mr. Avery, that's the third customer that Teresa sees that day. That's the only person that Teresa Halbach doesn't leave alive, or at least isn't seen alive, after meeting with Mr. Avery. So Schmitz and Zipperer can be and were, early on, I will admit that, were early on, eliminated as suspects in the case.

As the case develops though, you heard from Mr. Fassbender, that all the clues started pointing towards one person. All right. So when we talk about roommates and we talk about old boyfriends, what you would think about as typical suspects that may in fact be investigated, doesn't make a whole lot of sense in devoting a lot of resources in investigating those people when the car is found in a different location. When blood is found in that car, that turns out to be that of Mr. Avery.

But I guess most importantly, when the bones of the victim are found 20 feet or so behind the property belonging to Mr. Avery, you stop looking. You stop looking for people like boyfriends, or other customers, or this kind of a search. And you narrow it to who had access to Teresa Halbach at that particular time. So it's disingenuous, it's what I'm calling fooling you, to suggest that other suspects in this case were not ever checked out.

Mr. Strang talked about this phone call. Now, this is going to take a really, really good memory. And I hope one of you, and the 12 of you collectively, we call it collective memory, which means that when you deliberate in this case you can talk about those kinds of -- those kinds of things. When Mr. Strang first played this, or attempted to play this particular tape, for Mr. Colborn, I wonder if anybody remembers the very next thing that happened. I raised my hand and I said, objection, your Honor. I said, I want some authentication. Before Mr. Strang can play this tape, I objected and said, I want to know the date and the time of the tape. Because it's unfair to play this tape for the jury without telling them the date and the time that it's played. All right.

So it's foreseeing this very argument that Mr. Strang made about a half an hour ago, or an hour ago; that is, the tape could have been the 3rd, but I think it was the 4th. Okay. That's what Mr. Strang said to you, that Mr. Colborn, the answer by Mr. Colborn was it was on the third, but I think it was the 4th.

What the heck do I care, Mr. Strang, what you think. What do I care if you think that it was the 4th, or that it fits into your theory of defense. This case is about evidence. It's not about what Mr. Strang thinks. The answer given on the witness stand was, it was the 3rd, while on duty.

And the explanation about why it was a phone call rather than a radio transmission, or a dispatch kind of call, is because Mr. Wiegert had called Mr. Colborn, if you remember, on the phone. All right. He called him on the phone and said can you check this out.

So in turn, Mr. Colborn called dispatch and said I want to verify this particular plate. Nothing sinister about that. Nothing unusual about that. This isn't a traffic stop. It's not a stop where you would radio it in, where your time and your date become important and you want to log in that kind of thing. It's not a traffic stop at all. It's simply verifying Mr. Wiegert's information, verifying the year, the license plate, the make and model of the vehicle, nothing sinister.

Now, I'm going to ask you to reject what Mr. Strang said because that's not evidence. In fact, what I'm saying to you right now is not evidence. Evidence comes from the witness stand. All right.

The answer to that question was the 3rd of November. That is important. It's important whether it was the 3rd, or whether it was the 4th. Now, when Mr. Strang answered my objection by saying, well, we'll let the witness tell the jury when it is. And the Judge allowed that, and the witness did tell the jury when that was, that it was the 3rd.

Mr. Strang still today, still today, fools you, and stands before you and says, don't believe Mr. Colborn, I think it was the 4th. All right. That's the difference between evidence and speculation. That's the difference between the State's case and what the defense is trying to sell you in their arguments.

Bones were moved in this case. There's no question of that. Who moved the bones, to the State, or for the theory of the prosecution is easy. Mr. Avery moved the bones. He moved the big bones. He moved the big bones, the ones he could identify as human bones, from his burn pit, over to his sister's burn barrel. All right. That's a couple hundred feet away.

If you think about the selfishness involved in that particular act, that I think is -- is one factor. But I guess more importantly is directing attention away from himself. Might be that first night, might be the 31st, might be the 1st or the 2nd, because he has got a couple of days, as it turns out, before the police officers actually start the investigation.

But let's also remember this, collectively, I want the 12 of you to remember this when you deliberate. I want at least one of you to say this when you are back in the jury room. Although now we know that the cops didn't get the search warrant, and they didn't come on the property until the 5th of November, okay. We know that now. Steven Avery didn't know that.

Steven Avery didn't know that Teresa Halbach wasn't going to be reported missing until the third, or that the flyover search wasn't going to find the car, or that Ms Sturm even was going to find the car on the 5th. For all Steven Avery knows, the cops are on their way. Right away. On their way, right away, the afternoon, the late afternoon or early evening of the 31st.

Why is that important? Because as it goes through some of this evidence and your collective memories, and as you deliberate this case, please remember that. Because there are things that Mr. Avery does that the defense is saying, well, why would he do all of those kind of things. Mr. Avery did all of those things on the 31st because he didn't know that the cops weren't going to be knocking on his door, that very night. They didn't know that -- Mr. Avery didn't know that Teresa wasn't meeting a friend for dinner, or that she wasn't going to be missed, or that she didn't have another appointment, after she was killed by Mr. Avery.

And so that's why he starts burning things right away. That's why at 3:45 the electronics are already being burned. That's why, as we will be arguing and showing you, Mr. Avery disposes of the body at the earliest possible moment, that he moves the SUV at the earliest possible moment, that he removes the license plates.

He does all of those things, again, with the benefit, as you saw in the photograph that Mr. Remiker put in, of a police scanner, that's inside and on top of the bar in Mr. Avery's. The police scanner, so that Mr. Avery can hear, are the cops on their way. Which, again, should bolster, or should tell you why Sergeant Colborn uses the telephone rather than using the radio, it's because of things just like that, things like officer's safety. But, again, I'm advancing a little bit, and I want to make sure that I get to those points.

The bones were moved, but they were moved by Mr. Avery. These bones in the quarry, I'm going to take about 20 seconds to talk about, because the best anybody can say is that they are possible human. What does possible human mean? Well, it means we don't know what it is. All right.

The best anthropologists in the world don't know what these bones are. Dr. Eisenberg didn't know what they were. Dr. Fairgrieve didn't know what they were, he agreed with that.

And you heard a stipulation being read to you by a person by the name of Les McCurdy. Stipulation just means an agreement between the parties, that these bones, we felt it important enough, were sent out to the FBI. And Les McCurdy from the FBI determined that these bones were so degraded, that they were in such a shape that even through testing, what's called mitochondrial DNA testing, whether they are human or not, could not, even by the FBI, be determined.

So the bones in the quarry are really not evidence in this case. And so Mr. Strang has made a big deal out of showing you maps, and a little flag, and things like that about a possible bones. Again, speculation, conjecture, is not part of this case. Facts are going to be what decides this case.

MR. KRATZ: Thank you, Judge.

The primary burn site, that is, where the bones started burning, are important in a sense and they are not important in a sense. All right. It seems obvious what the answer is, but if, again, you drag that first layer off of the defense argument, it isn't going to make any difference. But, of course, the primary burn location is in Mr. Avery's pit. This is the primary burn location.

And why do we say that? Dr. Fairgrieve, I'm going to start from the other side, Dr. Fairgrieve, the defense expert in this case, said that he's had a case where bones were moved from one location to the other, and that in that case the bones moved to -- to the location had more bones than were actually there. But what Dr. Fairgrieve didn't do, and what he doesn't know, are all the things that Dr. Eisenberg did, and all the things that Dr. Eisenberg knows.

Dr. Eisenberg, of course, looked at the bones. I guess that's the most important factor. But this is one of those things that's common sense. This is one of those things that shouldn't take you a long time collectively. Shouldn't take the 12 of you very long to decide where the primary burn location is. It is the pit. It's not most likely the burn pit, it is this location.

How do we know that? Well, Teresa was invited, or lured, whatever term you want to use, on to that property. Her vehicle is there. That's the last place that she is seen alive, is just several feet from this location. Her burned affects are on that particular property, just a few feet away. Importantly though, her bone, her tissue, especially her skull fragments, all of them, all of them, are in this location.

Her clothes are there, at least what's left of her clothes, are mixed in with those bones, the rivets for her jeans are there. And common sense, her bones and her jeans are in the same place, because she's burned their. She's burned in that location.

She was called there by Mr. Avery. And the number one, if we're doing -- I'm going to switch them around. The number one reason why this is the primary burn location is that on October 31st, Mr. Avery had a big whopping fire there, on the 31st of October. And we haven't heard any evidence of a big whopping fire, the kind that would consume, fully consume a human body, anywhere else on that property. That's the primary burn location, ladies and gentlemen. You can find that, and you should find that, beyond a reasonable doubt. That shouldn't be a question for you.

Mr. Buting said that there were no fingerprints found on the SUV. I will just, again, in 20 seconds, tell you that the testimony, that perhaps Mr. Buting is ignoring, from Mr. Riddle, or at least didn't tell you about, from Mr. Riddle, the fingerprint guy, was that of the eight latent prints that were lifted in the case, none of them were suitable for identification. All right.

So what Mr. Riddle also told you is that, if you took your hand right now and placed it onto an object, it's very likely that you wouldn't leave fingerprints. That's why DNA evidence is so much more powerful than fingerprint evidence, at least nowadays, because of those dynamics that are involved. Because of the amount of sweat in your hands, and the oils, and all of those kind of things, all are called into question. I just mention that because I am obligated to because Mr. Buting had mentioned that.

They also, they meaning the defense, talked about Teresa's body in the SUV. Once again, expert testimony was that a 5 foot 6 inch person could, in fact, fit in this particular compartment of the RAV 4. And I guess you need look no further than this area, the stamp, as I talked about, the hair impression 25 year old Teresa has left in that location. You can almost see Teresa being pushed in, or shoved in, or stuck in that location, which brings me, or will bring me, to a point in just a moment.

Mr. Strang -- excuse me -- Mr. Buting, actually asked you whether or not it would be reasonable for police, by use of flashlights, to see the stain that was by the ignition. When I heard that I just about dropped my pen. All right. There's the location, and that's the stain that Mr. Buting is saying, why didn't the cops see this. Somebody want to tell me where a flashlight has to be shined -- shown, from the outside, to see that stain. You can see that through the front window? You can see that through one of the side windows? Are you going to see that through the very back? Where are you going to shine a flashlight that you are going to be able to see that particular stain. All right. That's disingenuous. It's the kind of argument that you should be discarding, that you should be saying it doesn't make any sense at all.

Mr. Buting also asked, well, if this piece of evidence is -- excuse me -- if the cabinet, the bookcase, is so important, why didn't the State bring it into the courtroom. I mentioned before, I think it's obvious, the State doesn't have exclusive control over any evidence in this particular case, at least as is presented in court. The defense has just as much right to bring that up here as the State did. All right.

We have taken photos, and I'm not going to apologize for that. I'm not going to apologize for what Mr. Buting calls my slick PowerPoints. My God, a second grader can do a PowerPoint examination. And the fact that Mr. Buting wants to fumble around, he can do that. I'm not going to do that to the jury.

But what we did do, is we took photographs of all of the evidence to make it easier to present, so that you could see all the evidence. We brought in boxes of items like the Palm Zire palm pilot box. We have the item itself, but we also have a picture of it. We have a picture of everything, as you have seen. And so we're using pictures instead of the thing itself.

And you can see, and at least understand, with big clumsy kinds of items, the reasons that we're doing that, for ease for the jury. So that you can see big things, and you can see small things, so we can zoom into areas, and sometimes we don't need to do that.

Defense also suggested that there was no blood on the CD case. Are you kidding me? Mr. Buting may have showed you a picture, and I didn't know where he got his picture from, but the blood is obvious on the CD case. By the way, I believe you are going to be getting the photographs back into the jury room. That's something the Judge will decide, not me. But you can look at the picture itself and determine whether or not there is blood on the CD case. Again, another example of being disingenuous, another example of trying to fool you.

Next time this happened in Mr. Buting's argument yesterday was when he talked about this stain, on the bathroom floor. Mr. Buting actually walked up to this particular exhibit and said, well, it looks like somebody took a Q-tip and put it right into that sample of blood. Which you heard some of the blood from Mr. Avery's bathroom was analyzed, that it was in fact Mr. Avery's blood, there isn't any question about that.

But what Mr. Buting didn't tell you, and what you heard testimony of, is when this blood sample was collected. Do you remember? Do you remember when this blood sample was collected? Remember Detective Remiker and Mr. Tyson, on the first night, talking about going through the entire trailer and collecting all the blood, and that they finished sometime after 10:00 p.m., as it was approaching 11:00 p.m., it was pouring rain outside. You all remember that, you remember that from the 5th of November.

Mr. Buting is trying to sell you, he is trying to fool you into thinking that maybe this is the source of the blood in the SUV. Folks, the SUV was already in an enclosed and locked trailer, on its way to Madison, with Crime Lab personnel and law enforcement personnel all surrounding it.

To suggest to you that this might be the source of any of all of that blood that you saw in the SUV is, again, disingenuous. It's trying to fool you. And it's my job, as the prosecutor, to point those things out to you. It's my job to show you just how absurd and ridiculous some of those arguments are.

Mr. Buting then talked about the bullet, and about the DNA, and suggested that, well, they are both in the same room with Sherry Culhane, Ms Culhane, the analyst in this particular case. What Mr. Buting doesn't tell you, though, doesn't remind you, though, when Mr. Gahn made this point very clear, because of what's called the contamination issue with the bullet in this case, is that the extract for a sample of evidence is done separately, and at a separate time than the extract or the control is done. Remember Ms Culhane telling you that the samples are locked away in a cabinet. She was talking about her bench, and how it's cleaned off, and those kind of things. And I don't know if Mr. Buting, I suspect he wants you to believe, if you remember collectively, if you remember about Ms Culhane, if he's suggesting that the Pap smear, or the DNA from Teresa Halbach, somehow got out of the sealed envelope that it was in, the standard, somehow maybe walked across her desk, somehow it jumped into the vial, or onto the bullet. And that's the kind of thing that Mr. Buting wants you to believe. That's disingenuous, doesn't happen that way.

Mr. Gahn knew that was an important point and he took time, meticulous time with Ms Culhane, to explain that process for you. It's Teresa Halbach's DNA on that bullet because, unfortunately, it went through her body. Not because the DNA from her Pap smear or from other standard that was within the Crime Lab somehow transmitted itself or made its way onto that bullet.

There are areas of agreement and this is, I guess, a positive part of the trial. There are some areas of agreement between expert witnesses in this case. Ms Arvizu, and I'm so happy that Mr. Strang cleared that up, it's not Dr. Arvizu. Mr. Strang called it a mistake that Mr. Buting made, calling her, or raising her to the level of doctor. She doesn't have her Ph.D., like Dr. LeBeau does, the Ph.D., the head of the toxicology unit at the FBI lab.

But Ms Arvizu, even the defense expert conceded on cross-examination, from Mr. Gahn, a couple of things. Number one, that a qualitative procedure is a solid scientific procedure. Don't have to do quantitative. In fact, in this case, when there's nothing there; in other words, when three of the samples don't have any EDTA, you can't quantitate it. How do you quantitate nothing? All right. You can't do that.

And so for your purposes, when these tests had to be done at the last minute, you heard why, you heard why we didn't get these to the FBI until the last minute. You heard from Mr. Wiegert, that Mr. Wiegert and the State didn't even know about this vial of blood until sometime in December. And you heard that on February 5th, the 5th of February, when you were being selected is when this was sent out to the FBI.

Back to Ms Arvizu, though, she recognized that the protocol that was developed was a good protocol, that it was based upon scientific articles, that Dr. LeBeau had made, what she called, significant improvements to any prior protocols that the FBI had done, based upon those articles, and was no question at all that Dr. LeBeau was able to find several things.

First of all, that there was EDTA in the vial of blood. Number two, that there was no detectable EDTA on the three blood samples. Now what Ms Arvizu did have some concern was about is that this expert only tested three of the samples. All right. Three of the swabs that -- that we're talking about. And I think -- I don't think that's the next slide, it is not. I will show those in just a minute, when we get to the EDTA part of this case. But there wasn't any question that EDTA was present in the vial and no EDTA was detectable on the samples.

We also heard agreement between Dr. Fairgrieve and Dr. Eisenberg. The agreement that we have heard. In fact, we liked Dr. Fairgrieve very much, from Canada, and although he is not board certified, you should not hold that against him. Dr. Eisenberg is, and that is only a handful of anthropologists that reach that level. But we actually thought Dr. Fairgrieve was a very, very nice man and a very good expert.

And he testifies mostly for -- in Canada, for -- for the prosecution. And I suspect that's why he conceded several things about his colleague, Dr. Eisenberg. First of all, that the gunshot wounds were present. That there were gunshot wounds that were found in this case, two of them, one in the left parietal, one in the occipital region.

He called them peri-mortem, meaning that they were about or around the time of death. He agreed that there was only one person, the bones of one person that we're talking about, which makes sense, and that the gunshot wounds were inflicted in this case before this burning process. All right. So Dr. Fairgrieve and Dr. Eisenberg had many -- and other than the primary burn site, which Dr. Eisenberg rendered an opinion about, and Dr. Fairgrieve was unwilling to do that -- most other areas were, in fact, something that -- that they had agreed upon. Judge, should we take just a couple minutes for a stretch break?

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

Defense argued that there was no blood found in the trailer. Since Teresa wasn't killed in the trailer, there shouldn't be. But what was found in the trailer is extremely important. Remember the testimony early on in this case, that on the 5th, on the very first search of Mr. Avery's trailer, they found the very same Auto Trader Magazine, the very same type of bill of sale that we put in this exhibit, that's from Mrs. Zipperer, the very same Auto Trader Magazine, very same bill of sale. Teresa was in that trailer. She was in the trailer, but she was not killed in that trailer.

Defense has a hard decision to make regarding Ms Culhane, is she competent, or is she incompetent. And you guys already know why that question has arisen and why it is such a pointed question. Because if she's talented enough with one hair, with one piece of evidence, to exonerate Mr. Avery, why isn't she talented enough with 180 items of physical evidence to contribute to his conviction.

So it's a hard argument to make that in one case, and in one circumstance, a couple years ago, she was very talented, she knew exactly what she was doing, but all of a sudden, she's bumbling, some mill worker, some person on a line type person, who really doesn't have any expertise. Well, you don't get it both ways. She's either talented, she either knows what she's doing, as the head of the DNA Unit at the Madison Crime Lab, or she's incompetent.

You already know the State's opinion regarding Ms Culhane. We have heard a lot about the Crime Lab Contamination Logs, 89 out of the 50,000 or so cases. I will let you guys do the math, as far as what the rate of error, or the contamination rate is.

Mr. Buting mentioned yesterday that perhaps the hood latch, perhaps the DNA that is found here was caused by that of Mr. Stahlke, because Mr. Stahlke reached up under and opened up and found that the battery cable was disconnected. Well, so what. Mr. Stahlke talked about he was rummaging around, he was actually touching all kinds of DNA and touching all kinds of blood, or any of those kind of things? Absolutely not.

These are professionals. These are people that process evidence for a living. Mr. Stahlke had gloves on when he opened -- latex gloves when he opened this particular vehicle. So it is not Mr. Stahlke's, it was Mr. Avery's DNA that is on the hood latch.

Now, the defense also asked why would Mr. Avery disconnect the battery. You heard them asking for speculation, guessing why Mr. Avery would disconnect a battery. I have got an answer and I'm going to tell you right now, right now, that this is speculation. This is guessing. All right. This isn't evidence. It's not even close to it. It's kind of what the defense has been doing through at least their closing arguments.

But I am going to speculate and I'm going to guess that a man who hid the SUV and knew that people were going to come looking for that SUV, thought a little bit ahead, not just to crush the car, and taking -- or in unhooking the battery. But when citizen searchers looked at 40 acres of cars, and they looked and they go, oh, my goodness gracious, how am I going to find that. Mr. Avery may have thought about those little devices that most of us have on our newer cars. Where we're able to press a button and our lights go on, or an alarm goes on, or something flashes, where you can find your car in a parking lot, if you are like me sometimes and I forget where I have parked my car.

Is that why Mr. Avery unhooked the battery, so that the citizen searchers that he knew were coming couldn't just press a button and of the 40,000 (sic) cars, could walk right to that. That's possible. All right. That's an inference, a logical inference, that could be drawn. But that's speculating, and that's not what I'm going to do. That's not what I'm asking you to do. I'm not asking you at all in this case to speculate. I'm simply answering Mr. Buting's question.

Where was Teresa killed. This is a easy answer, or at least it is an answer that is directed by all of the physical evidence in this case. Teresa Halbach, as we know, came to the trailer of Steven Avery. We know that they completed their transaction. How do we know that, because the book and the bill of sale was given to Mr. Avery. That's something that, as you heard, happens at the end of the transaction. That's sitting on Mr. Avery's computer desk. We know sometime later, that is, we know sometime in the future, a bullet is found in this exact area, has Teresa Halbach's DNA on it. All right. The inference, and this is an inference that I'm asking you to draw, is that Teresa Halbach was killed in the garage. She was killed in Steven Avery's garage.

Now, we have heard testimony about luminal finding blood, that is a reagent, a chemical that is used by the Crime Lab is spread out. There's two things that are most reactive with luminal, one is human blood and the other is bleach. Bleach coincidentally is the one thing that eats up or destroys DNA.

We have heard about just to the left and just to the back of this tractor, about a three to 4 foot area, large area that lit up or glowed very brightly. Mr. Ertl testified about that. He was the person who processed that area. I'm asking you to infer that Mr. Avery cleaned up this area with bleach.

Now, you knew that inference, or that suggestion from the State, I think, was coming. We have put in the bleach. We have talked about the luminal. We have gotten expert testimony from Mr. Ertl that the two things that light up, it wasn't blood, but it was, in fact, bleach.

You heard from Blaine Dassey, importantly, that the garage, other than the junk on the surrounding edges of this garage, looked pretty much like this, from the sense of the Suzuki and the snowmobile, which were in there later on that week, were on the side of the garage at the time. So Teresa Halbach's vehicle is backed in, backed into the garage.

Teresa Halbach is killed. She's laying down. She's shot twice, once in the left side of her head, once in the back of her head, or I guess I should more accurately say she's shot at least twice. Because two bullet's were found, two entrance wounds were found to her head. We do have the 11 shell casings on the 6th that were recovered. How many times Mr. Avery actually shot this poor girl, you probably aren't going to be able to determine, but it's at least twice, and it's at least twice to the head.

What does he do though, later, with Teresa Halbach. It's the State's theory in this case, and we're entitled to a theory, just like the defense, that after backing in the SUV, into the garage, which was, again, empty at the time, after closing the garage door, which Mr. Fabian testified is how he saw it at around dusk, Mr. Avery does a couple of things.

Remember he doesn't know if the cops or somebody is coming looking for Teresa. He has got lots to do. He has got lots of things in the next several hours to do in this case. He has to get rid of all of Teresa's stuff, her camera, her cell phone, her PDA, which very well may be in a purse or something, in the vehicle, which he burns. We know that those are in the burn barrel. We're going to talk about that in just a minute.

And he places Teresa Halbach in the back, or the cargo area of her own SUV. Now, in doing that, Mr. Avery does a couple of things. He doesn't do it very gently, because we know that there's motion involved. He throws, if you will, Teresa, in the back, because of the blood spatter across the back of the open gate. But Teresa is laying at rest; she is resting at peace, having been killed by Mr. Avery, kind of diagonally in the back of that SUV.

And because of her hair imprint, you are able to deduce that. You are able to know that. Again, remember my closing argument, those are more indications of Teresa telling you this is where I was. All right. This is where he put me. And those are inferences, again, that you should and can adopt. Why, because it's not dark yet, and he needs a big rip roaring fire before he can dispose of and mutilate this body.

Again, he has got to do all of this stuff quickly, because he doesn't know if the police are coming. So we hear then, at at least 7:30, perhaps before then, but at 7:30 there's already a fire, a big fire in the back. Although it's dark out, there's a big fire in the back of his garage. And we'll talk about some of the more details there. But as long as Mr. Buting asked about the theory of prosecution, again, which we are entitled, that is, in fact, the theory of the State's prosecution. Mr. Buting then asked, why would you build a fire when you have a smelter. The smelter, as we know, or at least this is from the top of the smelter, which kind of melts aluminum as I understand it, is, if you heard the testimony, or if you saw the business buildings, the out buildings, much closer to the residences of the parents, of Delores and Allen. Much closer to the residence of Charles Avery, the brother. Early on in this case we identified what all those buildings were and what were in all of those separate buildings.

But what Mr. Avery had to do required some alone time. Mr. Avery needed some privacy. And so Mr. Avery chose his burn area. He chose the place where somebody wouldn't happen upon him, or ask him what he was doing. He was building a fire like he had done many times before.

It's an area over which he had control. No other family members would be. And, importantly, Mr. Pevytoe, the arson investigator, remember he went through the smelter, eliminates the smelter as a possible burn location for the body.

Mr. Buting asked yesterday did we confuse Lisa Buchner in the case. When she originally testified, Mr. Strang, I believe, questioned her. Mr. Strang provided the answer. Again, this takes a good memory. This takes a lot of you to remember Lisa Buchner's question and answer. But the question was that -- I'm paraphrasing but -- directing your attention to the 31st of October, what did you see? Well, what that does, when you ask a question like that, as a skilled lawyer, and Mr. Strang certainly is a skilled lawyer, Mr. Strang can then come up here and can say, well, she said it was the 31st of October.

But she didn't, did she. She never said that it was the 31st of October. When questioned, very courteously by Mr. Gahn, again, about what date really was it, she said, I don't know. When Mr. Gahn asked her, where was the location, that she was clear about. Wasn't down by Mr. Avery's trailer at all. It was one of these cars that's parked at the corner that are for sale.

Well, importantly, that excludes, excludes, Teresa Halbach as the person taking this picture. Not only is the time wrong, because we have Bobby Dassey who doesn't have any questions about what this person looks like, or the time this happened, or that it was before he went deer hunting and knew and was able to recognize that that was Teresa Halbach.

But we have the defense own witness saying, I don't know. I don't know the date that this happened. Could have been the 1st, could have been the 2nd. Mr. Gahn said, could it have been a week ago, yeah, a week before. Could it have been two weeks before, yeah, it could have been two weeks before.

What does that do, how does that help? As Mr. Strang argued in his closing, do you believe that that's the truth, or do you believe that that's disingenuous, again? Is that a misrepresentation of what Ms Buchner actually said? In other words, how does it help? How does it help you? Between Bobby Dassey and Lisa Buchner, who has the better memory? Who was in a position to see what was going on that day? And those kinds of questions you are going to need to answer.

Same kind of thing with the other lay witness that was called in this case, some gentleman who was a propane employee, as I understand, who talked about seeing a green mid-sized SUV. Well, ask yourselves, is that a green, mid-sized SUV? I will argue, no, that that's not a green mid-size SUV.

But there's interpretations and there are things that may or may not be important about that. However, it hardly helps the equation. It hardly helps you decide in this case whether or not that was Ms Halbach. In fact, we know it wasn't, because Ms Halbach never did leave that property.

All right. You need to buckle up here. Because here's where the absurdity starts. Mr. Buting wants you to believe that some unknown person, somebody that Mr. Buting can't identify, somebody that the defense cannot identify, actually undetected, took one of the four burn barrels belonging to Barb Janda.

Suggested that that theory also includes -- By the way, that would take more than one person if you think about it, 55 gallon drum, carrying this, we're talking about more than one person. But we're going to go just for now with Mr. Buting's theory in this case, and that at some remote location, Teresa's burned, that the bones are dumped, and that the burn barrel is put back. Mr. Buting doesn't tell you, though, are the eight or nine steps in between that you as a jury have to find as facts, in order to kind of buy this. Okay. When somebody is trying to sell you something, and when you decide whether or not you are going to buy that, you should understand all of the steps that you have to buy.

You have to buy that they could first of all take one of these barrels undetected. All right. Next, that they have Teresa Halbach lying dead somewhere. Whoever this is, has Teresa already lying dead in some remote location. And rather, rather than dispose of Teresa Halbach, if they were inclined to do so, at that remote location, Mr. Buting is asking you to believe that she's burned, that her body is mutilated, that her body is then loaded, apparently, into this 55 gallon drum of Barb Janda, that has been stolen, it's a theft, that's been somehow secreted off of the property.

What you are then being asked to believe is that they loaded back on whatever vehicle it is that they are able to transport Ms Halbach, after, remember, the at least hour and a half to 2 and a half hours at 1600 degrees that it takes to fully cremate a body, that they load all of these remains. And rather than dumping them someplace else, they bring them back to the very place that Steven Avery, on the day that Teresa Halbach was killed, had a big fire.

And they decide to dump the bones. Now, they don't decide to dump all the bones, Mr. Buting's theory goes. They only dump the bones, some of them, and they leave some of them. But interestingly, the ones they dump are the little ones, and the ones they leave in the barrel are the big ones.

Undetected. But they are able to do this, undetected, just a couple of feet from Mr. Avery's trailer. Then Mr. Buting wants you to believe that they are able to put back the barrel that has been taken off of the property, again, undetected, and leave.

Now, Mr. Buting called that a plausible explanation, one theory as to how these bones can be in two different places. I hope you agree with me as to the plausibility of that defense theory.

Coupled with that theory, what you have to buy into, what you have to believe, is that there is somebody else out there, that there is somebody, not a police officer. All right. So that narrows the scope of people that are able to do this. Somebody who's not a police officer, who skillfully exploited the law enforcement bias. That the real killer knew about, apparently, the lawsuit, or the animosity, or the embarrassment, or something about the 1985 case enough, where it was important enough to them to kill some innocent 25 year old victim and plant it on Mr. Avery's property.

That's absurd. If this wasn't such a important decision that you had to make, it would be laughable. It would be something that if somebody told you at a party, or somebody told you at your home, you would say nobody would believe that. And nobody should. Nobody should believe this series of situations or coincidences that would necessarily lead you to find Mr. Avery not guilty.

The SUV was planted in this case, or at least the defense will have you believe that the SUV was planted, that somebody planted the SUV. The fact of the matter is that this SUV was concealed. It was obscured. Somebody didn't want it to be found. Let me say that again. What you are looking at right here, how the SUV was found by Ms Sturm, was by somebody who didn't want this SUV to be found. All right. That makes sense.

Well, if you are going to plant evidence, you have to want it to be found. Because if Mr. Avery is going to be accused of some murder that he didn't do in this case, you would expect to find this vehicle, if it was planted, in the Avery parking lot, or by Mr. Avery's trailer, or in some location where it would be found.

Again, it was only through happenstance and by very fortuitous intervention that vehicle was ever found. Very important, collectively again, and using your common sense to understand that concept, that this vehicle was obscured in such a way that whoever put it there, like this, didn't want it to be found. Defense wants you to ignore this, and for good reason. The defense wants you to ignore the electronics that were found in the burn barrel. Why, because there's no explanation for it. Because it doesn't fit in any, in any theory that the defense has advanced in this case. All right. No law enforcement planting theory, no civilian planting theory, no individual who skillfully exploited the law enforcement bias theory, explains why these things are burned in Mr. Avery's burn barrel.

And so apparently the defense wants you to ignore that. Well, remember the instruction, and reasonable doubt is not -- is a doubt based upon reason and common sense, but in consideration of the evidence, which means all of the evidence in this case, not just some of it.

So my point, ladies and gentlemen, is if you are going to buy into one of these theories, you have got to ask yourself, collectively, what the heck is this. Her phone, her PDA, her camera, are all found about 20 feet from Mr. Avery's door, and he is found, that day, burning in that particular barrel. If Mr. Avery is not involved in the death and mutilation of Teresa Halbach, then why are these things in that barrel.

Also, you can't ignore the fact, please, collectively remember, that after 2:41 p.m., after 2:41 p.m. on the 31st, Teresa Halbach's phone is never used again. Never used again. Her phone is in that burn barrel. Her phone is being burned. And you, as the jury, have to decide why. There's a couple of explanations, one is that the defendant killed her and burned it, and the other one, I guess, the defense wants you to just come up with on your own.

That brings me to the conclusion, or the last question, and that's, did the cops kill Teresa Halbach. Again, the defense says no. But if the cops had her blood, if the cops had her bones, and before the 5th, if the cops knew she was dead, let me say that again, if before the 5th the cops knew that Teresa Halbach was dead, they were either told that by the real killer, or they killed Teresa Halbach.

You have got to be willing to accept one of those scenarios. And I don't think you can. And I don't think you should. And I don't think that the evidence points to that at all.

Mr. Strang, in his opening statement, promised you what the defense was going to be. Mr. Strang told you that it's no surprise that the blood from an unsecured vial in the box in the Clerk's Office, that Lieutenant Lenk examined in 2002, ends up in the Toyota. At the start of the case, that was what the defense was. That's what the defense theory was. That's what the defense said their theory of defense and what the evidence was going to show in this case.

Vial planting, though, causes some risks, risks to, what I'm characterizing as risks to the defense. Because when you announce that defense, the State gets to meet that defense. We get an opportunity to tell you, the jury, through witnesses, whether or not that's plausible, whether or not that could happen, or whether or not that's implausible.

And there's two ways to do that. First, is the common sense way to do that. The vial planting defense for Mr. Avery, and for the defense team, is that either Mr. Lenk or Mr. Colborn got through this door. All right. They got through a door that they didn't have a key to, and they got through a door that they didn't have the code to. That's the first part of this.

The next thing that they are asking you to buy is that they knew that there was a file someplace in the Clerk of Court's Office, sometime between the 3rd and the 5th of November. Now, why do I say the 3rd and the 5th, because the 3rd is when Teresa is reported missing, doesn't pay to plant evidence and to steal a vial of blood before we know that it's going to do any good. And the 5th is when Pam Sturm finds her. So between the 3rd and the 5th they have to know that this box actually exists.

They also need you to buy that they know that there is a box within the box. That there is a vial of blood inside of that particular box in the Clerk's Office. They need you to believe -- They need you to believe that they get through a door they have no key, that they have no code, they find a box that they don't know the existence of, they find the vial that they don't know the existence of, and then they are able to get their hands on that vial of blood. They also need you to believe that nobody sees them do this, that they are able to do that undetected, to secret it, again, to remove it from the Clerk of Court's Office in Manitowoc, to plant the blood, assuming they know how to do that, in six different places.

I'm stopping right here, because I need to. Because for the defense version to hold any water at all, the van -- excuse me -- the SUV can't be found yet. They have to plant the blood before it's found. Again, there's only two ways that they can do that. Either they kill this 25 year old girl, or they found her murdered somewhere else.

And if they found her murdered somewhere else, then weren't they taking quite a chance, weren't Mr. Lenk and Colborn, if you admit or buy what it is that these two gentlemen are selling, wouldn't you have to agree that they took a chance that this very 25 year old photographer was also last seen alive by that man.

My God, they got lucky, didn't they. To go and find the vial of blood, even assuming they knew where it was, that the dead woman that they had in their possession, theoretically, was also the last person to have seen Mr. Avery. It doesn't make sense. All right.

That's the common sense way to deal with the vial of blood planting. By the way, because the vial of blood is still in the Clerk's Office, you have to reverse this process. You have got to get the blood back after we do the planting. We have to get through, again, the door that we have no key to, and we have no code to, and into the box, and get this thing secreted back in there, undetected, with nobody seeing.

That's not reasonable. That's not a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubts are for innocent people. Reasonable doubts are things that juries adopt when all the evidence points to that. And this planting, this vial planting defense, even from a common sense standpoint, is absolutely ludicrous.

But what we were able to do, what you heard, is scientifically exclude that vial of blood. You heard from Dr. LeBeau, who testified that this blood is loaded with EDTA and this blood, and this blood, and this blood, have no detectable levels of EDTA. And so instead of calling all of the people with keys and with codes, and people in the Clerk's Office, and who might have seen Lieutenant Lenk or Colborn, or all those kinds of things, instead of doing it that way, we only had to call one witness, who scientifically could tell you that there is absolutely no way that that vial of blood was used to plant.

In fact, that very question was asked of Dr. LeBeau, the head of the toxicology section, or the unit at the FBI. And he said, by a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, this vial of blood is excluded, that means it's not it, it's excluded as the source of those three bloodstains.

Now, why is that important. Lieutenant Lenk and Sergeant Colborn, as I mentioned earlier, are good, decent, honest cops, sworn to uphold the law. Kinds of officers Manitowoc citizens should be proud to have on your police force. They are the kinds of guys that you want investigating cases for you, for Manitowoc County. And again, they are not just some cops, they are your cops, that's why a Manitowoc jury decides this case.

This isn't just two guys, it's Jim Lenk and it's Andy Colborn. And when you accuse police officers of official misconduct, that's serious business. Mr. Strang correctly predicted that there would be some anger about this issue, coming from the prosecution side, and there is.

Let me tell you why. Their livelihood, their reputations, their families, everything in their 20 plus years of law enforcement are on the line, when some lawyer accuses them of misconduct. Not just any misconduct, but planting evidence in a murder case. All right. Serious, serious business.

And as a representative of the State, as the prosecutor in this case, I'm here to tell you folks, that if you are going to allege that some Manitowoc cop is crooked, that some Manitowoc cop committed a crime, you better have something to back it up. And when you don't, and when there is a witness from the FBI who says that didn't happen, and when common sense said, that didn't happen, these men are owed an apology. Their good name, their reputations, need to be restored to them. And Mr. Strang talked about what a guilty verdict, or a not guilty verdict, may do in this case. A guilty verdict is most importantly attributed to whether or not Mr. Avery committed these horrific acts in these cases. But also the issue of official or police misconduct should be something that angers you, just as its angers me.

Mr. Buting said that he might have been a little rough on Ms Culhane, that he owed her an apology. I'm hoping that the comments that have been directed towards Jim Lenk and towards Andy Colborn, at the conclusion of this case, are also met with an apology.

But what I heard yesterday, what I heard yesterday, from Mr. Buting, when he suggested that perhaps it was Teresa's lifestyle that contributed to her homicide, I'm paraphrasing, but he said, because she was at some party, what do we know about this party that she was at on Saturday, or what do we know about some phone calls that she had gotten, or what do we know about her living arrangements.

Do you blame a 25 year old homicide victim? And when you suggest that that victim had some responsibility, or something to do with her own demise, you need to be held accountable for that. You need to be taken to task for that. And, again, as the prosecutor, I'm expressing my indignance about that.

Any suggestion that these good people of the Halbach family have to endure in listening to Mr. Buting stand before you and say, what about this woman's lifestyle, or what about this party, or what about who she's living with, is absolutely out of bounds, absolutely improper, has no place in this case.

What does have a place in this case is the facts. And now I have come full circle. And at the conclusion of this, my final argument before you, the jurors, you have seen, and should see by now, the stark difference between the State's facts, between our reliance on the facts, and the defense necessarily relying upon speculation.

Physical evidence, the DNA evidence, the eyewitness testimony, the scientific evidence, the big fire that Mr. Avery had, common sense all point to one person and there's a reason for that. As the jury in this case, you have a duty. You have a duty to return what's called a true verdict. You have a duty to search for the truth.

I agree with Mr. Strang that you do have a duty in this case, but I disagree when Mr. Strang tells you that your finding of guilt in this case is not going to solve the crime. It is. It's going to solve the crime.

And I'm here to tell you, also, as the prosecutor, and collectively, the three of us prosecutors, with lots and lots of years of experience, are also going to tell you that it will provide closure. It will provide closure for the Halbach family, at least in the legal sense. And it's in the sense for what you are charged to do, and that is to assign responsibility. It's to assign accountability for the death of Teresa Halbach.

I don't believe it is a difficult decision. It's a complex series of facts. And it is a very, very serious case. But it's not a difficult case. It's not a difficult decision that you have to make, because everything in this case pointed towards one person, towards one defendant.

I'm thanking you, at the conclusion of this case, on behalf of the State of Wisconsin. And urging you, urging you, to follow the Court's instructions, to follow the evidence in the case, and return verdicts of guilty. Thank you. Thank you, Judge.