re: Making A Murder O-T Lounge Thread

- a lot of dumb ITT that should never be on a jury or don't know what reasonable doubt is

-I don't know what happened

-how were they allowed to shut the whole place down for a week and have officers that knew they weren't supposed to be involved in the case being heavily involved every day?

-If you don't think Lenk and Colburn are dirty then I feel sorry for you

-I can't get over the Colburn phone call days before the car is found where he says "99 toyota"

-How does it take you multiple times searching a tiny bedroom in a trailer to find a rather large key on a rather large key chain

-same with the bullet found in the garage

-where did the murder take place?

-where is any of her DNA?

-Why was his blood evidence tampered with?

-Why isn't her DNA on her key?

-Why did the sheriffs department make such a big deal at the beginning of investigation making it known they would not be involved in the investigation?

-Why were they so involved after said press conference?

-Why did they ask if Avery was in custody within 30 minutes of hearing her missing?

-how in the hell were Lenk and Colburn allowed so much access just weeks after deposition, these guys names pop up everywhere

-how many times would it have taken the average OT poster to find that key?

-where is any blood spatter in the garage?

-Why would Avery cover everything up so well, and set the car right where it can be easily seen?



***I am not saying Avery is innocent. I just know I have plenty of suspicions and reasonable doubt***

Who knows? It's Nancy Grace for God's sakes.

quote:

---

MCSD had access to Avery's DNA because of a crime they thought he committed years before. It is possible that they planted that evidence.

Going forward, would it be reasonable to say that any guy who was in jail (innocent or guitly), gets released, commits a crime, and gets tried for new crime can now say evidence is planted being that have his DNA from the previous crime?

---

It has to be taken on a case by case basis, and I'll explain why.

Motive, means, and opportunity. Remember these three words.

Motive - MCSD had lots of motive to plant evidence that ties Avery to the crime. He humiliated them and was suing for millions, and many officers and officials in Manitowoc Counter were being deposed just weeks before the murder, with more depositions scheduled to take place in the days following.

Means - MCSD had access to Avery's blood vial, but not only that, the evidence seal was broken, and the blood vial had been pierced by a hypodermic needle. The people in the lab said that they don't do that, so who did? Who would had a motive to collect blood from the vial with a hypodermic needle?

Opportunity - MCSD had access to the blood vial and access to the crime scene, even though they weren't supposed to be involved in the investigation. Lenk lied under oath about when he arrived at the crime scene, and he never signed in when he arrived. He did sign out, however.

MCSD had the motive, the means, and the opportunity to plant evidence against Avery. Does that mean they did it for sure? No, but it does create reasonable doubt about the blood evidence.

So, is it reasonable to assume that in all future cases when someone is exonerated and they are later charged with another crime that they had evidence planted? No, that's not reasonable. You need to consider whether anyone would have the motive, the means, and the opportunity to plant evidence. If their blood is in a sealed evidence container and the chain of custody of that evidence is well documented, then the means and opportunity to plant that evidence is nonexistent. But that wasn't the case with Avery's blood.

It has to be taken on a case by case basis. In Avery's case, it's reasonable to suspect evidence planting.

who and when would have had the time to hide the car on the property with no one seeing? the compound wasnt shut down until after they found the vehicle there.

quote:

---

who and when would have had the time to hide the car on the property with no one seeing? the compound wasnt shut down until after they found the vehicle there.

---

I have no idea, but according to what was stated in the documentary, there were multiple ways to access the Avery property and it doesn't appear to have been difficult to get the car there without anyone noticing. There were several days between the time she disappeared and the time her car was discovered on the property. We also know that Colburn called in the RAV4 license plate and identified the vehicle with the plate as being a 99 Toyota. This happened a couple days after she was missing and a couple days before the car was found, right? That's how I remember it.

I'm not saying Colburn put the car there. I'm just noting that he did this because it's strange. Why was he calling in this car and giving a physical description of it if he wasn't looking at it? As I recall, he didn't offer an explanation while he was on the stand.

Yeah that too

quote:

---

Speaking of which...the claim is Steven's sweat is on the key...I've been reading Teresa's DNA isn't on the key at all. Has this been confirmed, or just a rumor?

---

Confirmed by everyone. She owned the key for 6 years, yet none of her DNA was found on the key. NOT SUSPICIOUS AT ALL.

quote:

---

Motive - MCSD had lots of motive to plant evidence that ties Avery to the crime. He humiliated them and was suing for millions, and many officers and officials in Manitowoc Counter were being deposed just weeks before the murder, with more depositions scheduled to take place in the days following

---

and watching the depositions they were caught totally off guard by the questioning.

Lastly, the Sheriff was to be deposed on Nov 10, and the DA on Nov 15. Those were the big fish that needed to be caught, and sadly the whole TH ordeal never allowed them to be deposed.

quote:

---

What did this matter?

---

Another clear indication of ineptitude on the side of the investigators, and if Colborn, Lenk times coincided with the finding of the evidence? That raises lots more questions, which could lead to damning evidence against them.