I’ve circled where it was found on 5 November. Can you see it? I can’t. In fact, there look to be fewer cars in that area than had been there later. Looks to be lots of gaps between them.
It would be worth contacting NBC to see all of their aerial footage on whatever day that was. Was it stock footage? Or was it shot at the time of the search? Maybe they have the original that can be enlarged?
Those who are examining the evidence in the Halbach murder case as depicted in the Making a Murderer program from Netflix (Dec 2015) have probably come across two elements that come into the story after initial searches: the magic bullet and the RAV4 valet key. I have tweeted about both of these as well as posted on the subReddit. I’d like to expand a bit, showing some of the images I’ve looked at as trial evidence has been released.
[see new image below – used with permission; Thanks, Smash.]
[NEW new image below – used with permission; Thanks, tuckerm33]
[oh DEAR – another visual analysis. I feel like a yoyo.; Thanks, magilla39 (I think)]
The Magic Bullet
Something’s been bothering me about the Steve Avery garage search and the ‘magic bullet’ found days later in that mess of a garage. Turns out, the spot that the flattened bullet at marker 23 was in plain sight. So how was it in one photo there wasn’t a bullet under, sort of, the green air compressor next to the red tool shelf stand, but amazingly there it is later when it’s magically found? Did Andy Colbert shake the tool shelf ‘violently’ as well? And the bullet ‘happened to fall out’ and roll under the green compressor? See what you think. Here are a series of photos from the trial evidence:
[and when you get through this, there is a surprise update at the end – WORTH IT!]
First is Evidence photo 266.
Unfortunately, the resolution isn’t very good. A magnifying glass would help. However you can get a relative position of the found bullet by observing the discoloration on the cement floor.
In the photo above: pay attention to the WHITE stuff near the yellow evidence marker. IT’s VERY IMPORTANT.
[old UPDATE – keep reading below this next photo]
‘Smash’ on the Reddit discussion of Making A Murderer took me on regarding these images and produced this, showing the angles if you moved the red tool chest around. In this image manipulation, it appears the bullet could actually be behind the wheel of the air compressor. It’s hard to know, given that many items could have been moved out of position, including the tool chest, by the time the bullet find happened. I could be convinced either way. There are no landmarks for the red chest position in the latter photos.
UPDATE January 2017
Well, things are emerging. Here’s another photo of the same area, comparing not the surrounding moveable items, but something that is UNmoveable: the WALL.
Why does that matter? Because there is NO DUST ON TOP OF THE BULLET. The bullet was placed there after the jack hammering the day before. Go ahead, slide back up this page and look again. The bullet is sitting on TOP of the CEMENT DUST.
The key found on the floor of Avery’s bedroom wasn’t found until several days after the initial search. It appears on the floor beside a bookcase across from the side of the bed, near the doorway to the room. It as Lenk who spotted it, not Colborn or the Calumet County investigator, Kuscharski. K was sitting on the bed, the key was straight in front of him, according to his testimony.
Several items on the top of bookcase are in their same positions. Note the position of the white pieces of paper near the remote control. And yet, Colborn’s testimony was that he shook the bookcase and the key fell out, somehow. You might say he pulled the bookcase forward (note the electric cable is a slight different angle) and it separated the back of the bookcase from the main structure (the cable extended into the bookcase to a charger I believe). Yes, the case had been searched, the loose items removed before. So why now? and how did the key end up so far away from the supposed source?
Finally, who moved the slippers and when? Lenk and Colborn were both working in that area according to K. Lenk points from the doorway: look there’s a key.
There is an uproar that began this week in Australia when the head of the top national research organisation, CSIRO, decided we don’t need no steenking climate change modeling. Those scientists and staff can change to engineers and start figuring out how to ‘mitigate’ the risk.
It didn’t take long until the worldwide climate science community came out in force to tell the ‘venture capitalist’ Marshall that he’s got it wrong.
– explaining to yourself that their outcry is because ‘they’re not going to want to change’. Sir, good science is completely about change. I see you’re an engineer and physicist by background. That explains much about your misunderstanding. You worked in a static discipline. You’ve been working in finance and business. You are being very condescending to those who are telling you that you are wrong.
– change as your justification. **Inclusion** of mitigation is, in my opinion, a good thing. We are at risk. It is important to assist those whose lives will be affected by the impact of extreme climate change — coastal areas, food production, energy use, building construction to name a few. However, it does not mean the models are static and complete. What if we had stopped developing and observing 30 years ago? Our models today would be wrong. How would we understand what is happening now? It’s not just about continuing to collect data. It’s about interpreting it, feeding it into the scientific community, testing hypotheses, and identifying the areas where mitigation is going to be required.
– equating the reaction to ‘religion’. ““In fact it almost sounds more like religion than science to me. “ On the contrary, you are hearing from professionals — worldwide — who are pointing out you are making a grave error. This is not a group of religionists, sir. These are some of the best minds in the world. I suggest you consider they may know a bit more than you about this area.
In closing, I don’t want you to take any time in responding to this email. What I ask you to do instead is to ramp up a bit of your own humility, think about the expertise of the people in the scientific community most involved in this discipline, and step back from this ill-thought-through decision.