Skip to content
Steven Avery & Brendan Dassey— Case Archive
Steven Averytrial-daytrial-dayThomas J. FallonKenneth R. KratzJerome F. ButingDean A. StrangDavid SidersWilliam TysonJohn ErtldirectcrossredirectrecrossDay 6 - February 19, 2007John Ertl testified about crime-lab searches and limits on blood screening and burn-pit documentation. David Siders described apparent cell-phone parts in a burn barrel, William Tyson described vehicle security and residence searches, and the court addressed exhibit admissions.
← Day 5Steven AveryDay 7 →

Day 6 - February 19, 2007

Ertl’s Scene Work, Burn-Barrel Testimony, and Tyson’s Search Account

Judge Patrick L. Willis
9Proceedings
4Pages
3Witnesses
2,327Lines
Day 6 of 27
Appearing:
Thomas J. Fallon Kenneth R. Kratz Jerome F. Buting Dean A. Strang David Siders William Tyson John Ertl

John Ertl testified about crime-lab searches and limits on blood screening and burn-pit documentation. David Siders described apparent cell-phone parts in a burn barrel, William Tyson described vehicle security and residence searches, and the court addressed exhibit admissions.

Full day summary

Crime-lab scientist John Ertl described inspecting the locked RAV4 from outside, arranging its covered transport to the laboratory, and examining several search areas. He said the excavation near Kuss Road was not a burial site. He distinguished bloodstains in Steven Avery’s residence from recognizable patterns and said a faintly luminol-reactive garage-floor area did not react to a phenolphthalein test for blood. On cross-examination, Ertl said his team provided technical assistance rather than complete scene processing and did not record the precise positions of suspected fragments collected from the burn-pit ash pile. Questions about DNA on a key and possible cleanup were hypothetical; Ertl later said he had never seen the key. Deputy David Siders testified that he found ashes and melted plastic resembling cell-phone parts in a burn barrel. He said he saw a Motorola emblem in person but could not identify it in the photographs shown. Sergeant William Tyson described guarding the RAV4, accompanying officers on an initial residence search he called quick rather than thorough, and later collecting a hood-latch swab for possible DNA evidence. After the jury left, the court addressed exhibit admissions, corrected the record to show Exhibit 89 was not admitted, and said JoEllen Zipperer’s written statement, Exhibit 28, should not be received.

1. John Ertl — Direct/Cross/Redirect/Recross

Crime-lab scientist John Ertl testified about the RAV4, searches at several locations, and forensic testing. His cross-examination on Day 6 addressed contamination, scene processing, and the collection of burn-pit material.

→
Procedural
Appearances and Resumption of the State’s Case
6 lines
Direct
John Ertl — Direct John Ertl Thomas J. Fallon
487 lines

John Ertl traced crime-lab work on the RAV4, burn areas, and nearby search sites, and explained the limits of the garage's luminol result.

Cross
John Ertl — Cross John Ertl Jerome F. Buting
801 lines

Ertl was pressed on contamination, RAV4 timing, limited scene photography, negative garage-floor blood screening, and how burn pit material was collected.

Redirect
John Ertl — Redirect John Ertl Thomas J. Fallon
83 lines

Ertl addressed SUV transport, hypothetical key DNA and blood cleanup, and the limits of his bloodstain expertise.

Recross
John Ertl — Recross John Ertl Jerome F. Buting
83 lines

Buting tested Ertl's blood-evidence comparisons and key-DNA hypothetical; Ertl identified limits to his knowledge, and three exhibits were admitted.

Highlights

John Ertl — Directtestimony highlightAfter examining and excavating the disturbed area near the end of Kuss Road, Ertl concluded it was not a burial site.John Ertl — Directtestimony highlightErtl distinguished a garage-floor spot that tested positive with phenolphthalein from a larger, faintly luminol-reactive area that did not; he could not identify what caused the larger reaction.John Ertl — Direct“Well, there was something that had been spread out in a large area that was reacting. I don't know what.”— John ErtlPreserves Ertl's uncertainty about the larger garage-floor luminol reaction.John Ertl — Cross“Had we been working any of these scenes from start to finish, there would likely have been more thorough photo records, done by us. However, under the circumstances, we were merely able to provide technical assistance rather than complete scene processing.”— John ErtlThe email excerpt states the limits of the crime-lab team's scene role and photographic record.John Ertl — CrossadmissionErtl said suspected bone fragments from the roughly four-by-five-foot ash pile were not recorded by precise position; material collected from that area was placed together in a box, and his team sifted only the ash pile.John Ertl — Recrosstestimony highlightOn the key hypothetical, Ertl said DNA deposition varies by person, qualified his answer about finding two people's DNA to a situation in which each merely handled the key, and said he had never seen the key in this case.John Ertl — Recross“I know nothing of the key; I didn't ever see the key.”— John ErtlErtl expressly limited his testimony about the key in this case.

2. David Siders — Direct/Cross

Deputy David Siders described finding a burn barrel with apparent cell-phone parts; cross-examination addressed the barrel’s location and what he could identify in photographs.

→
Direct
David Siders — Direct David Siders Kenneth R. Kratz
118 lines

Siders described finding a burn barrel and apparent cell-phone parts during a field search, then explained his handling of the barrel before three photographs were admitted.

Cross
David Siders — Cross David Siders Dean A. Strang
116 lines

Siders clarified the burn barrel's contents, the limits of the photographs and his location estimate, and why he did not join the dives.

Highlights

David Siders — Directtestimony highlightSiders described finding a burn barrel in his search area, removing a metal rim, and seeing ashes and melted plastic that appeared to him to include cell-phone parts.David Siders — Crosstestimony highlightSiders said he saw a Motorola emblem with his naked eye but could not discern it in the photographs shown during cross-examination.

3. William Tyson — Direct (Part 1)

Sergeant William Tyson described securing Teresa Halbach’s RAV4 and documenting an initial search of Steven Avery’s residence.

→
Direct
William Tyson — Direct William Tyson Kenneth R. Kratz
526 lines

Tyson traced RAV4 security, Calumet's oversight of the first residence search, seized items, and later hood-latch and DNA-related collection.

Highlights

William Tyson — Directtestimony highlightTyson described instructions to accompany three Manitowoc County officers, document their search, and take custody of seized evidence. He characterized the first residence search as quick rather than thorough.William Tyson — Directevidence eventTyson identified the April 3 RAV4 hood-latch swab, marked as Exhibit 205 for identification, and showed where he swabbed the release mechanism.

4. Exhibit Admissions and End-of-Day Counsel Matters

After the jury was excused on Day 6, the court addressed exhibit admissions, corrected the status of Exhibits 89 and 28, and left Tyson's cross-examination for the following day.

→
Procedural
Exhibit Admissions and End-of-Day Counsel Matters
107 lines

The court admitted several exhibit groups, corrected the status of Exhibits 89 and 28, and clarified how disputed photograph dates could be presented to the jury.

Highlights

Exhibit Admissions and End-of-Day Counsel MattersrulingAfter both sides explained that Exhibit 89 was intended for the court record, not jury consideration, the court directed that it be recorded as not admitted.Exhibit Admissions and End-of-Day Counsel MattersrulingCounsel disputed whether JoEllen Zipperer's written statement should be received as Exhibit 28. After discussing its use to refresh recollection, they agreed it should not go to the jury, and the court said it should not be received.
← Day 5Steven AveryDay 7 →