It's been answered several times and it is a solid point. If you do a quick search through these forums, you'll see it. Again, even this is more evidence of police tampering.

The initial statements by Tadych to police regarding witnessing the bonfire as he drove by were "flames about three feet high" yet when he gets on the stand, his story is "flames about 10 feet high". I think prosecution knew that a fire with flames about 3 feet high were never going to be enough to corroborate burning the body at SA's bonfire that night so the story had to change.

It was pretty damn clear that he was looking at the Rav4 when he made that call.

Apparently not. ****ing disgusting.

There's actually literally no evidence that he was.

And when though about objectively, it makes no sense that he was.

Well when he tries to say that he "thought the dispatcher confirmed" to him the make and model only to have Strang replay the call to point out HE is confirming the make and model as well as the plates, it looks totally like what the defense claims it to be. Plus why is he even calling dispatch about this in the first place?

The hard Q's lol. How about.

A. Have the PD of manitowoc EVER APOLOGIZED TO THE VICTIMS of G.Allen since they let a guilty man roam free.
B. Has any compensation been paid to these said victims.
C. Why has the officers involved in SA 1st case been promoted since they nearly bankrupted the county with the law suit.

Im sure there are also better ones too.

I think they clearly did it and the police clearly were involved in wrong doing and planting evidence.

I also think even though Len Kachinsky was terrible in the way he did it, trying to get the slow kid to take a deal was most def the right move. Brandon could have gotten a much shorter sentence testifying against Steve and making the case he was forced into helping his uncle.

He actually confirms the make and year ("99 Toyota"), even though the Rav4 design is supposedly exactly the same from 1997-2000.

Well considering he'd received a call from detectives about a missing person, maybe just maybe he's calling to confirm those details that he'd written down?? (him knowing it's a "99 Toyota" supports this)

Yeah, unlikely a rando. If that's what happened, it would've been someone who either knew her schedule (perhaps an ex who knows her passwords and has access to an online calendar) or someone on the Avery property who saw her leave and saw a crime of opportunity.

The idea that some have floated that the cops killed her and framed Avery is tin foil hat level crazy imo. I have real trouble believing that.

I think there's certainly a decent chance Avery did it, maybe 60-65%, but zero chance he killed her in the trailer or the garage.

+1 to all of this, pretty much sums up the whole thing for me. Given the publicity around SA, clearly any person who COULD have killed her, even some random local, would 99% think about pinning it on SA afterwards, if it wasn't already part of their plan.

As far as the cops planting certain evidence to help convict "their" suspect, 1.) It wasn't clear that it would ever be questioned, in which case it could only help get a conviction, and 2.) they clearly aren't very smart and had every reason to hate SA, and dumb, vindictive people sometimes do dumb, vindictive things.

Watching the makers on CNN right now. They said they were contacted in November by one of Avery's jurors. The juror said that they believed that there was zero evidence to prove Avery guilty, but they voted guilty because they feared for their safety. Wow.

Yeah, none. Except that call....Did you listen to it/see his reaction when called out on the stand?

Please, explain the bolded.

I mean this makes sense. They are manitowoc residents and a vote of non guilty, is effectively confirming the suspicion of planted evidence (even though it shouldn't as it should mean there wasn't beyond reasonable doubt of SAs guilt). That could easily cause huge problems for them in the future with LEOs, especially if there was planted evidence.

Yeah, it makes sense, of course. My 'wow' is in reference to the possible implications of this admission.

Take a deal for ****ing what?

Good points !!
1. Did they find any DNA not belonging to TH in the vehicle (besides the DNA from the blood stains belonging to SA) ?
I mean obviously TH did not drive the vehicle to where it ended up.

In that case either it was cleaned really well or the forensics fked up.

2. Dunno he could have strangled her unconcious or sth. Then punching/or stabbing her in the trunk when she woke up.

That's called good editing and seeing what you want to believe.

Okay, so besides there being no evidence that he saw the plates, and despite there being evidence that he was just confirming written down information (knowing the year of the car), let's assume he did see the plates.

1. If he's part of this great conspiracy, why would he ask the department about the plates over a phone call (which will obviously be recorded)?

2. In this hypothetical scenario, there is a young girl who's been missing for 3 days. There's 2 branches to this scenario: he either sees her body in the car or he doesn't.

If her body is not in the car:
There is a missing person, very possibly still alive, and he waits two more days to act on this information while framing someone for a murder he's not sure even happened yet.

Not only do you have to assume he doesn't care about finding a missing girl when time is obviously of the essence. You also have to assume he's an idiot for planting blood in the car when he's not even sure what the actual events are yet (risking easily being caught if events don't play out right).

If her body is in the car (we'll even assume the bones are already burnt):
Then you have to assume he planted her bones all over Steven Avery's yard, somehow undetected (the risk of getting caught doing this is unbelievable). (He also sure is lucky Steven had a bonfire that night.)

(Also realize that Colborn is not actually in danger of criminal or financial punishment from the lawsuit, despite how the series portrays it.)

Didn't know if that was brought up yet, but did you guys notice Colburn smirking right behind Branden Dassey as the verdict was read (ep 9 if I remember correctly)? And then escorting him through the courthouse having difficulty wiping the grin of his face? No conflict of interest my ass. What a despicable scumbag. I honestly wonder how people like him sleep at night.

He (Coburn) was same dude that ignored the call that would have let SA out early from the previous charge. Someone doesn't just do that without animosity towards the person imo. The county was about to owe 36 million so I wouldn't doubt one bit people may have had SA on surveillance most of the time to try and get out of it.

You're missing a motive here.

Another Avery juror talks
http://onmilwaukee.com/movies/articl...urortalks.html

My b. Wasn't critiquing your post just saying it wasn't something I actively considered until you mentioned it.

I always chalked it up to the bias of the two jury members being connected with state employees, and chalked it up to the people who caved on their non guilty leaning not wanting to deal with a deadlock.

Tbh as shady as coburn reading the license plates was if that hadn't happened I'd be somewhat convinced one of the police acted off the books and killed girl after she left and set it all up. The license plate thing as weird as it is kind of counts him out imo unless it's a third level call in.

Ah, sorry. No worries.

He didn't ignore it. He told his superiors about the call. Did you want him to go full McNulty when his bosses ignored it?

Here's an opinion on the lawsuit from a civil defense attorney who deals with these kinds of lawsuits: https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurd...torney_on_the/

Basically, he says the lawsuit isn't that big of a deal.

The dude had a confession on record. Len tried to get it thrown out and couldnt. Take a deal and get a smaller sentence seems like the right move with no other silver bullets available. Now the kid is facing life in prison (or 2046 or whatever) instead of what a deal could get.

Len is obviously a scumbag but many non scumbag lawyers would suggest the same thing I imagine.

How often do you think someone with a confession admissible in court is found not guilty?