Holy shit, right?!?! This was her one and only chance to show to the court that Steven Avery (and Brendan) are innocent and some of her findings are saying that Ryan Hillegas is the killer!

The goal right now for Ms. Zellner and Co, is to get Steven a retrial and then she’ll have access to ALL the evidence and more testing can be done. She had to lay a foundation as to why she believes Steven was wrongly convicted and once she’s granted a retrial, she’ll build upon it and be able to tell the full story.

Now, her brief did contain A LOT more juicy information besides Ryan, and I highly recommend you go and read her brief in it’s entirety. I will be posting more information about her brief in the next couple days.

I think some people are really starting to shit their pants and they may cave and come forward or they might fight this to the bitter end. We shall see. I really hope the guilty party turns themselves in and Steven and Brendan are released but I don’t think that’ll be the case, unfortunately.

So, Ryan Hillegas, I think the gig is up and I think you should really start to consider doing the right thing and turning yourself in.

More tidbits from Ms. Zellner’s brief:

215.According to Mr. McCrary, based upon violent crime statistics, the killer most likely knew Ms. Halbach and may have been involved, at some point in time, in a romantic relationship with her. (Affidavit of Gregg McCrary, P-C Group Exhibit 42, 1 5). The relationship was characterized by verbal and physical abuse by the killer towards Ms. Halbach. (Affidavit of Thomas Pearce, attached and incorporated herein as P-C Group Exhibit 44). Even after Ms. Halbach ended their relationship, the killer continued to attempt to exert control over her by living nearby and coming to her home frequently. (Affidavit of Gregg McCrary, P-C Group Exhibit 42, 118).

216. Before Ms . Halbach ‘ s murder, the killer most likely became aware that she was sexually involved with a married man and a second male who was a very close friend of the killer’ s. (11 /4/05 CCSD Interview of Bradley Czech (“Mr. Czech”) (“Bradley Czech Interview”), attached and incorporated herein as P-C Exhibit 43) (Affidavit of Gregg McCrary, P-C Group Exhibit 42, 117).

217. The killer wanted as much time as possible before the people close to Ms. Halbach realized she was gone. As she received more and more phone calls, her voice mailbox became full, something uncharacteristic of Ms. Halbach. The killer, who knew the password to her voice mailbox, deleted several of Ms. Halbach’s voice messages to buy himself time before Teresa’s family and friends realized that she was missing and began

searching for her. (Affidavit of Gregg McCrary, P-C Group Exhibit 42, 122). 218.Before her death, Ms. Halbach was known to regularly check and respond to her voicemails . (11/9/05 DCI Interview o f Thomas Pearce, attached and incorporated herein as P-C Exhibit 52 , ST A TE 770). I f family and friends were to call Ms. Halbach and receive a message that Ms. Halbach’s voicemail was full, it can be assumed that they would have been alarmed. When Ms. Halbach’s voicemail was discovered to be full on November 3, 2005, it triggered her friends and family to notify law enforcement that she was missing. The killer deleted voice messages from Ms. Halbach’s voicemail in order to prolong the window of time before Ms. Halbach was reported missing, thereby increasing the amount of time the killer had to dispose of Ms. Halbach’s body and personal effects.

(Affidavit of Gregg McCrary, P-C Group Exhibit 42, 122).
219. The method of deletion, in order to leave no record in Ms. Halbach’s cell phone records,

could only be accomplished in one way: her voicemail had to be accessed from another phone by using Ms. Halbach’s voicemail password. Ms. Halbach’s phone records do not indicate that her voicemail was accessed using her own phone after 2: 12 p.m. on October 31, 2005. This indisputable fact means the person who accessed Ms. Halbach’s voicemail, prior to the authorities realizing she was missing on November 3, 2005, had to be the killer who knew Ms. Halbach’s password, which would be required to delete voicemails recorded to her phone. (Affidavit of Gregg McCrary, P-C Group Exhibit 42, 22). The killer knew Ms. Halbach very well in order to know her password. Clearly this person was not Mr. Avery.

220. Knowing that he was likely to be a prime suspect due to his prior romantic relationship with Ms. Halbach, the killer, who was highly organized, devised a plan to burn the body and plant evidence which would focus law enforcement on someone else. Because the killer found appointment details in the paperwork in the RAV-4, he knew Ms. Halbach had an appointment with Mr. Avery earlier that afternoon. The killer formulated a plan to move the body and the vehicle near the Avery property with the intent of planting the RAV-4 on the Avery property and Ms. Halbach’s bones and electronic components as soon as the body and electronic components were burned in the adjacent gravel pit. (Trial Exhibits 17, 20; TT:2/13:79-80, 92). The killer would have been familiar with Mr. Avery and his fame as a wrongfully convicted exoneree who was suing Manitowoc County. (Trial Exhibit 17; TT:2/13:79-80) (Affidavit of Gregg McCrary, P-C Exhibit 42, 7,

17, 25).
221.The killer wanted to control the investigation and direct it towards the single goal of

framing Mr. Avery for the murder. To accomplish that goal, he volunteered to take control of the citizen search as a means of both staying informed and controlling the focus of the investigation. In his initial contact with law enforcement, the killer immediately attempted to misdirect their investigation by not telling them about his relationship with Ms. Halbach or her relationship with other men. (TT:2/13:189). The killer participated in the discovery of major pieces of evidence, even going as far as leading searchers to the vehicle that he planted. (Affidavit of Gregg McCrary, P-C Group Exhibit 42, ,i 7).

The Killer, And Not Law Enforcement; Planted Mr. Avery ‘s Blood in the RA V-4

222. CmTent post-conviction counsel’s blood spatter expert has demonstrated that Mr. Avery’s blood was planted in Ms. Halbach’s RAV-4 (see ,i,i 129-134). The only parties who may have had motive to plant evidence inculpating Mr. Avery were the killer and law enforcement, namely MCSD, in light of Mr. Avery’s pending civil action against Manitowoc County.

223. However, current post-conviction counsel has determined that MCSD officers did not have time to plant Mr. Avery’s blood in the RAV-4 on November 3, 2005. After Sgt. Colborn came to the Avery prope1iy on November 3 to speak with Mr. Avery around 7:00 p.m., he attended a meeting at the MCSD at 8:00 p.m. (T:2/20:73, 78). Sgt. Colborn’s presence at the MCSD was corroborated by Inv. Dedering. For Sgt. Colborn to arrive at the MCSD, an approximately 23 minute drive from the Avery prope1iy (Google Maps Directions from Avery Property to MCSD, attached and incorporated herein as P-C Exhibit 49), by 8:00 p.m., he must have departed the Avery property by 7:37 p.m. Therefore, Sgt. Colborn would have had a short window of opportunity to obtain a spare key to Ms. Halbach’s RAV-4, locate Ms. Halbach’s RAV-4, drive Ms. Halbach’s RAV-4 from Kuss Road to Mr. Avery’s trailer through the field, drive back to a hiding place after being detected, return to the trailer a second time, collect Mr. Avery’s blood from his bathroom sink, and plant Mr. Avery’ s blood in Ms. Halbach’s RA V-4. If Mr. Avery left at 7:15 p.m., Sgt. Colborn would have had 22 minutes to accomplish all ofthose tasks. lfMr. Avery left at 7:20 p.m., Sgt. Colborn would have had 17 minutes to accomplish all of those tasks. If Mr. Avery left at 7:25 p.m., Sgt. Colborn would have had 12 minutes to accomplish all of those tasks. If Mr. Avery left at 7:30 p.m., Sgt. Colborn would have had 7 minutes to accomplish all of those tasks. It is therefore extremely improbable that Sgt. Colborn planted Mr. Avery’s blood in Ms. Halbach’s vehicle on November 3, 2005. Further, Sgt. Colborn was driving a squad car when he met with Mr. Avery. Mr. Avery believes that the tail lights that he saw on his prope1iy were more similar to a RAV-4 than a squad car. (Affidavit of Steven Avery, P-C Exhibit 4).

224. The killer was familiar with the Radandt and Manitowoc County pits. He devised a plan to bring the RAV-4 from the murder scene to the Avery property. His chiefobjective was to plant the vehicle on thd Avery property. The killer was organized and methodical, and likely had a background in science. He knew that he needed to put something with the DNA of Mr. Avery in the RAV-4. Evidence from the scent and cadaver dogs supports the conclusion that the killer drove the RAV-4 onto the Avery property from Kuss Road, across a field to the vicinity ofMr. Avery’s trailer. (Scent and Cadaver Dogs Reports, P-C

Group Exhibit 46, STATE 42-43; Affidavit ofSteven Avery, P-C Exhibit 4).
225. Once Mr. Avery departed, the killer began to drive the RAV-4 onto the Avery property. When Mr. Avery spotted the RAV-4’s tail lights and turned around and drove back to check it out (Affidavit of Steven Avery, P-C Exhibit 4), the killer retreated to Kuss Road. Once Mr. Avery left again, the killer drove back to the trailer. The south door on the east side of Mr. Avery’s trailer was unlocked. (Affidavit of Steven Avery, P-C Exhibit 4), and the killer entered the trailer, intent on finding an item of Mr. Avery’s with his DNA that he could use to plant DNA in the RAV-4 to co1mect Mr. Avery to Ms. Halbach’s murder. In the small trailer, the killer noticed fresh blood in the batlu·oom sink. The killer recognized from his scientific background that if this blood was in Ms. Halbach’s RAV-4, Mr. Avery would immediately become the only suspect. The killer quickly collected the blood from the sink in Mr. Avery’s batlu·oom and deposited the blood in several spots throughout the R A V -4 . The killer recognized that the blood had to be planted quickly , within 15-28 minutes and before it coagulated. (Affidavit of Dr. Blum, P-C Group Exhibit 47, 12). He then hid the RAV-4 in the vicinity of the Kuss Road cul-de-sac.

226. On November 3, the killer learned vital information from law enforcement during his police interview. He quickly realized that law enforcement was focused on Mr. Avery and not on him. He was not asked to explain his past relationship with Ms. Halbach or to provide an alibi for the afternoon and evening of October 31. He was not asked about the scratches on his left hand or why he knew Ms. Halbach’s voicemail password. The killer was not treated like a suspect. (TT:2/13:194-95).

227. On November 4, the killer decided to make another attempt to plant the vehicle on the opposite side of the Avery property, that is, in the southeast corner, close to the crusher. The killer, who drove the RAV-4 into the Radandt Pit in the late afternoon ofNovember 4, was aided by an accomplice who drove another vehicle into the Radandt Pit to give the killer a ride out after the killer planted Ms. Halbach’s vehicle on the Avery property.

228.The killer led law enforcement to Ms. Halbach’s vehicle later in the evening on November 4. The killer represented to law enforcement that he would be willing to search the Avery property, something that the police could only do with a warrant based on probable cause which they did not have on November 4. The killer, accompanied by law enforcement, went to the A very property and the killer proceeded to Ms. Halbach ‘ s vehicle in the southeast corner of the salvage yard. When the killer looked into Ms. Halbach’s vehicle, he called out, “it’s hers,” because he recognized her personal items in vehicle in addition to her vehicle itself.

229. Once the vehicle was found on the Avery property, the investigation of any other potential suspects halted and, just as the killer plaimed, the whole case was focused on Mr. Avery. (Affidavit of Gregg McCrary, P-C Group Exhibit 42. 1 21). The killer duped law enforcement into focusing exclusively on Mr. Avery and helped them justify planting additional evidence to frame Mr. Avery.

The Killer Planted the Bones and the Electronic Devices

230. As the leader of the search team, the killer had w1restricted access to the Avery salvage yard and surrounding properties, closed off to public access. This was critical, because the killer still was in possession of the burned bones and the electronic devices of Ms. Halbach. Access to the Avery property allowed him to plant the bones and electronic devices of Ms. Halbach in Mr. Avery’ s bum pit and burn barrel.

The Killer Knocked Out the RAV-4 Parking Light While Trying to Plant RAV-4 on Mr. Avery’s Property

231.Mr. Avery did not see any front end damage to Ms. Halbach’s vehicle when she came to his property on October 31, 2005. (Affidavit of Steven Avery, P-C Exhibit 4). Mr. Schmitz, an earlier appointment of Ms. Halbach’s, noted that Ms. Halbach’s vehicle “looked very new,” and did not note any damage. (11/3/05 CCSD Interview of Steven Sclm1itz, attached and incorporated herein as P-C Exhibit 50, STATE 1210). However, when Ms. Halbach’s vehicle was discovered on the Avery salvage yard on November 5, the driver’s side parking light was broken out and the killer had placed the broken light in the rear cargo area of her RAV-4. When the killer damaged the vehicle, he did not want the parking light found anywhere other than the Avery property because if any pieces of the parking light were found elsewhere, the State’s entire theory that Mr. Avery was the killer and the RAV-4 never left Mr. Avery’s property would disintegrate. The killer would be highly motivated to pick up the parking light if he had a collision with a post that knocked the parking light to the ground near Mr. Avery’s trailer. The killer put the parking light in the rear cargo area of the RAV-4 and planted the RAV-4 on the Avery prope1iy.

232. Only someone who committed the murder and/or was involved in the effort to plant the vehicle on the Avery property would know the significance of the broken parking light and that it had been placed in the RAV-4 to conceal the fact that the vehicle was moved onto Mr. Avery’s property from elsewhere. Northwest of Mr. Avery’s trailer, between the Avery property and the cul-de-sac at Kuss Road, there was a metal post protruding approximately 2 1⁄2 feet from the ground. (Photo showing post, P-C Exhibit 51). When the killer attempted to plant Ms. Halbach’s vehicle near Mr. Avery’s trailer, he collided with this post, causing the damage to the front end ofMs. Halbach’s RAV-4 and knocking out the driver’s side parking light. He recognized the need to retrieve the parking light because leaving it, or any pieces of it, in the field would show the RAV-4 left the Avery property contrary to Mr. Kratz theory that the RAV-4 never left the Avery property. (TT:3/15 :77-78).

Only One Person Meets the Requirements of Denny as a Third Party Suspect With Motive, Opportunity and a Connection to the Crime

Abusive History

233. Mr. Hillegas was Ms. Halbach’s ex-boyfriend. Mr. Hillegas and Ms. Halbach knew each other since they were freshmen in high school, and dated on and off for five years. (TT:2/13:156, 173). Although Ms. Halbach and Mr. Hillegas were romantically involved during their high school and college years, they were no longer together in 2005, although Ms.

Halbach reported to friends that Mr. Hillegas continued to check her out despite being broken up for years. (Email from Ms. Halbach, attached and incorporated herein as P-C Exhibit 53, STATE 4030).

234. According to Mr. Pearce, a friend and colleague of Ms. Halbach, Ms. Halbach had been in a verbally and physically abusive relationship prior to or during her internship with Mr. Pearce. Ms. Halbach interned with Mr. Pearce in 2003 during her senior year of college when she was still involved with Mr. Hillegas. (Affidavit of Thomas Pearce, P-C Exhibit 44).

Jealousy Was The Motive

235.While Mr. Hillegas maintained an interest in Ms. Halbach, she was no longer romantically interested in him. (Email from Ms. Halbach, P-C Exhibit 53). Ms. Halbach became sexually involved with her housemate, Mr. Bloedorn, in the months preceding her disappearance. (Bradley Czech Interview, P-C Exhibit 43, STATE 2523-24). Reportedly, Mr. Bloedorn was also Mr. Hillegas ‘ best friend . (TT :2/13 :175). Mr. Hillegas committed pe1jury at trial when he described Ms. Halbach’s relationship with Mr. Bloedorn as platonic and never romantic or sexual in nature. (TT:2/13:157). Current post-conviction counsel’s investigator Mr. Steven Kirby attempted to interview Mr. Bloedorn about false statements he had made to the police in 2005 . Mr. Bloedorn refused to sit for an interview with Mr. Steven Kirby, but when he was told that current post- conviction counsel planned to name a suspect in Ms. Halbach’s murder, Mr. Bloedorn immediately blurted out, “You mean Ryan Hillegas.” (Affidavit of Steven Kirby, attached and incorporated herein as P-C Exhibit 83). Another point ofjealousy for Mr. Hillegas might have been the fact that Ms. Halbach, as part of her business, took nude photographs of men and women and this activity led her to become sexually involved with one of her clients, Mr. Czech. Mr. Czech was married to someone else at the time. Ms. Halbach kept the nude photographs that she had taken of Mr. Czech and his then-wife in the bedroom of her residence, (11/4/05 CCSD Interview of Jolene Bain (“11/4/05 Jolene Bain Interview”), attached and incorporated herein as P-C Exhibit 54, STATE 2511) a home that Mr. Hillegas frequented and moved into after Ms. Halbach’s death. (11/14/05 CCSD Report by Sgt. Tyson, attached and incorporated herein as P-C Exhibit 55, STATE 1466; Correspondence Regarding Nude Photography, attached and incorporated herein as P-C Group Exhibit 56, STATE 3898, 3849; Affidavit ofThomas Pearce, P-C Exhibit 44).

236. Mr. Czech left a text message for Ms. Halbach at 12:45 p.m. on October 31, 2005. Mr. Czech was completely forthcoming in his interview with law enforcement on November 4, 2005 that he had texted Ms. Halbach. He was not asked the content of the message nor to show the message to law enforcement during his interview. At no point did law enforcement attempt to obtain the text message from Mr. Czech. (11/4/05 CCSD Interview of Bradley Czech, P-C Exhibit 43). Although Mr. Czech did not have an alibi for October 31, and another witness had described that Ms. Halbach had broken off her relationship with Mr. Czech but he continued to call her, Mr. Czech did not meet the Denny requirements. (11/4/05 CCSD Interview of Jolene Bain, P-C Exhibit 54).

237.For some unknown reason, Mr. Hillegas called Mr. Czech on November 3, 2005. According to their phone records, this was the first time Mr. Hillegas talked to Mr. Czech on the phone. (Ryan Hillegas Phone Records, attached and incorporated herein as P-C Exhibit 57; Bradley Czech Interview to verify Bradley Czech’s phone number, P-C Exhibit 43).

Mr. Hillegas Intentionally Misled Investigators

238. When Mr. Hillegas volunteered false information about when the parking light damage occmTed, it raised red flags about his involvement in the murder and the effort to frame Mr. Avery. (12/14/05 DCI Report, attached and incorporated herein as P-C Exhibit 58, STATE 1144). Certainly, Mr. Hillegas had no motive to frame Mr. Avery unless he himself murdered Ms. Halbach. It is difficult to imagine a much more compelling motive to frame Mr. Avery than the one possessed by the murderer of Ms. Halbach. The alleged motive, presented by trial defense counsel, that MCSD investigators were trying to derail Mr. Avery’s civil rights lawsuit against them pales in comparison to the killer’s motive to frame Mr. Avery.

239.Mr. Hillegas intentionally diverted investigators by reporting that the damage to the driver’s side bumper and parking light of Ms. Halbach’ s RA V-4 occurred months before her disappearance and that she had filed an insurance claim for the damage. (12/14/05 DCI Report, P-C Exhibit 58, STATE 1144). Current post-conviction counsel, through its investigator, has confirmed that Ms. Halbach never filed an insurance claim for this damage to her vehicle, and fmiher contends that the damage to Ms. Halbach’s vehicle occurred after she left the Avery property on October 31, 2005. (Response to Subpoena to Erie Insurance, attached and incorporated herein as P-C Exhibit 59). The most reasonable explanation for Mr. Hillegas ‘ intentional misleading o f law enforcement regarding the damage to Ms. Halbach’s parking light is that Mr. Hillegas wanted to divert attentionfromtheparkinglightthatwastossedintherearcargoareaoftheRAV-4 by the killer when he was trying to plant the car on Mr. Avery’s property and inadvertently hit a post on Randandt’s property. Mr. Hillegas would not want the searchers looking for other pieces of the parking light on the Radandt property because, if those pieces were found, it would destroy the State’s narrative that, after the murder, the RAV-4 never left the Avery property. If the narrative implicating Mr. Avery was refuted, the investigators might begin looking at more likely suspects such as Mr. Hillegas himself.

240. Mr. Hillegas was trained as a nurse but was unemployed in October and November 2005. He had no alibi for October 31, 2005, the date Ms. Halbach was murdered, or the subsequent days when her body was burned and bones planted. (TT:2/13: 174).

241.Mr. Hillegas was never asked by law enforcement to provide an alibi for October 31, 2005. (TT:2/13:194). Trial defense counsel failed to conduct any substantive investigation of Mr. Hillegas, choosing to name him as a potential suspect at one point but failing to meet the requirements of Denny.

242. Mr. Hillegas’ cell phone records show significant gaps during time periods in question. On October 31, 2005, there was a six hour gap – a time frame in which there were neither incoming nor outgoing calls – from 9:41 a.m. to 3:48 p.m. (Ryan Hillegas Phone Records, P-C Exhibit 57). It is most likely that during this time frame, Ms. Halbach departed the Avery property, departed the Zipperer property, and was killed after she arrived home at approximately 3:40-3:50 p.m. Ms. Halbach’s day planner indicated that she wanted to “get Sarah’s stuff from mom” at about 3 p.m. and “do biz paperwork” at approximately 4:30 p.m. (“Ms. Halbach’s day planner,” attached and incorporated herein as P-C Exhibit 45). Also on October 31, there was an over two hour gap in Mr. Hillegas’ phone records from 3:50 p.m. to 6:01 p.m. (Ryan Hillegas Phone Records, P-C Exhibit 57).

243. Mr. Hillegas’ phone records have an over 17 hour gap from 7:47 p.m. on October 31, 2005, to 1:31 p.m. on November 1, 2005, during the time where Ms. Halbach’s body was transp01ied and burned. Subsequently, Mr. Hillegas had more suspicious gaps in calls. There was a six hour gap in phone activity on November 2, 2005, from 10:06 a.m. to 4: 12 p.m., and a gap on November 3, 2005, from 7:31 p.m. to 8:10 p.m, the time when Mr. Avery reported seeing headlights on his property. (Affidavit of Steven Avery, P-C Exhibit 4). His last call on November 3, 2005, was at 10:44 p.m.; Mr. Hillegas did not make another call until 7:52 a.m. the next morning. On November 4, from 4:15-7:25 p.m., Mr. Hillegas received 21 calls from an unidentified, hidden phone number. It is reasonable to conclude that the calling party intentionally hid its phone number and may have been law enforcement. It is during this time period that Sgt. Colborn called dispatch to confirm the license plate on Ms. Halbach’s car. (See ,i 256, infra) (Ryan Hillegas Phone Records, P-C Exhibit 57, pp. 8-10; Trial Exhibit 212, Track 3).

244.Mr. Hillegas had access to Ms. Halbach’s Cingular Wireless account and knew her username and password, as evidenced by Mr. Hillegas’ admission that he used her username and password to obtain her phone records after she went missing. (TT: 2/13:159).

Opportunity to Conceal and Plant

245.Mr. Hillegas called Ms. Halbach’s phone at 6:42 p.m. on November 1, 2005. Mr. Hillegas has admitted that when he called on Thursday, November 1, 2005, an automatic message played saying that Ms. Halbach’ s voicemail box was full. (TT:2/13 :183).

However, Mr. Hillegas’ testimony is undermined by the fact that his call only lasted 4 seconds; by comparison, Mr. Avery’s call, which also generated an automated message that the voicemail box was full, lasted 13 seconds, more than tlu·ee times longer than Mr. Hillegas’ call. (Ms. Halbach’s cell phone records (“New Cell Records”), attached and incorporated herein as P-C Exhibit 72). Sometime after that call and before the call of Mr. Pearce when her voicemail box was full again, the killer deleted voice messages.

246. Scratches are visible on the back of Mr. Hillegas’ left hand in footage taken prior to the discovery of the RA V-4 on November 5, 2005 . Current post-conviction counsel’s forensic pathologist, Dr. Blum, has opined that Mr. Hillegas’ injuries are consistent with scratches from fingernails. Dr. Blum has confirmed that photographs of Ms. Halbach taken close to her death establish that her fingernails were of adequate length to inflict such scratches on Mr. Hillegas left hand. (Photographs of Mr. Hillegas’ Hands, attached and incorporated herein as P-C Group Exhibit 60; Affidavit of Dr. Blum and and video reenactment of likely scenario creating injury pattern, P-C Group Exhibit 47; Affidavit of Gregg McCrary, P-C Group Exhibit 42, ,i 25).

247. The most obvious motive for burning Ms. Halbach’ s body would be if the killer had a known and established relationship with Ms. Halbach and his DNA was on her body from a struggle or rape. Additionally, the burning of the body would allow him to move or plant the bones and divert the suspicion away from himself, because he was likely to be a prime suspect due to his prior abusive relationship with Ms. Halbach. Mr. Avery would not need to risk detection by others by burning Ms. Halbach’s body in an open pit 20 feet from his trailer. Mr. Avery could have crushed the vehicle and disposed of the body on the hundreds ofacres surrounding his prope1iy.

Mr . Hillegas Accessed Ms. Halbach ‘s Voice Mailbox
248.After hearing Ms. Halbach’s voicemail was full, Mr. Hillegas, who had no trouble accessing Ms. Halbach’s Cingular Wireless account, would be able to delete some of her voicemails in order to prevent family and friends from becoming concerned by a full voice mailbox. Clearly, the killer would not want Ms. Halbach’s voice mailbox to be full because friends and family calling her would become concerned about her well-being and contact the authorities.

249.Ms. Halbach’s voice mailbox had a twenty-minute capacity. (Cingular Basic Voicemail Features, attached and incorporated herein as P-C Exhibit 61). When Mr. Avery called Ms. Halbach’s phone at 4:35 p.m. on October 31, his phone call went directly to the automated message which indicated that the voice mailbox was full, meaning her voice mailbox was occupied by twenty minutes of voicemails. When Ms. Halbach’s colleague, Mr. Pearce, called her on November 2 around noon, her voice mailbox was full, meaning her voice mailbox was occupied by twenty minutes of voicemail again. (TT:2/12: 199- 200). According to Agent Fassbender’s report documenting his receipt of voicemail records from Cingular, five minutes and eleven seconds worth of voice messages were left between when Mr. Avery found Ms. Halbach’s voicemail to be full and when Mr. Pearce found Ms. Halbach’s voicemail to be fl.ill. Therefore, to make room for the voice messages that were recorded between Mr. Avery’s call and Mr. Pearce’s call, at most five minutes and eleven seconds worth of voice messages were deleted by the killer between when Mr. Avery called and when Mr. Pearce called. (6/12/06 DCI Report (“Agent Fassbender VM Report”), attached and incorporated herein as P-C Exhibit 62).

-TID

theinspiringdad.com