Prosecutions closing rebuttal on the key.
Let's assume Mr. Strang's theory is correct, that these cops aren't trying to frame 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 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?