No, you actually are the worst so that's why that is happening.

You had things pointed out with screenshots from the doc and from transcripts more than once.

jury intimidation , police framing , some lawyers conspiring against their clients...

What s the big deal guys , that guy killed a cat 30 years ago

That do not contradict anything I said? Can you give me an example?

I agree. Epic troll job.

I dont really follow this thread any more.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...-2007Feb20.pdf

here is lenks testimony.. Pretty clear he was invited by everyone in charge with the investigation several times to participate. Another thing the doc leaves out. They just make it look like he keeps showing up without permission to plant evidence.

Interesting..

3 Q. And so the jury understands, when Mr. Avery was
4 wrongfully convicted back in 1985, were you a
5 member of the Manitowoc County Sheriff's
6 Department?
7 A. No, I was not.
8 Q. Then, what involvement did you have; in other
9 words, what was your part of the deposition?
10 A. The part of the deposition was that I received a
11 statement from Sergeant Colborn, in 2003, I
12 believe, September, that he had taken a phone
13 call back in 1997, from another department, I
14 believe he said it was Brown County Sheriff's
15 Department, that they had in custody an
16 individual that had committed an assault in
17 Manitowoc County and that Manitowoc County had
18 someone in custody for that assault.
19 Q. Is that all?
20 A. That's all.
21 Q. Did you even receive that call back in the
22 mid-nineties?
23 A. No, sir, I did not.
24 Q. So your deposition was that you heard that Andy
25 Colborn got such a call; is that right?
A. Yes, sir, I received that information from Andy,
2 himself.
3 Q. Did that lawsuit cause you any personal or
4 professional embarrassment?
5 A. No, sir, it did not.
6 Q. Did that lawsuit create any angst or ill feelings
7 on your part?
8 A. No, sir, it did not.
9 Q. Did the fact of that lawsuit cause you any upset,
10 or aggravation, or anger?
11 A. No, sir, it did not.
12 Q. Did that lawsuit cause you or compel you to -- to
13 plant any evidence in this case?
14 A. No, sir, definitely not.
15 Q. What did you feel about that lawsuit; do you
16 remember?
17 A. I pretty much didn't care, one way or the other.

Its made pretty clear they weren't disallowed from participating.

That's not the issue. I don't understand how you can't see it looks shady to say these guys won't be participating then they show up at the crime scene 35 times.

Again, never in any other professional capacity would you see a conflict handled this way.

Its also important to note that Lenk was an evidence tech and there were only a handful at the crime scene doing the investigation.

Fine then tell people to stop spreading that lie.

I just assume the Doc was not THIS dishonest this whole time. Holy ****, Lenk didn't even get a call in 1998 about the wrongful conviction. He was not going to be held liable in anyway for the lawsuit. All he was called to testify to was that Colborn had told him in 2003 (After avery as exonerated) that he had received a call 8 years earlier from the other police department who suggested a man was locked up for a crime he didn't commit.

HOly mother of ****. So what was lenks motive to frame SA?

Example: your belief in Brendan (not Branden, Brendon, Brandon, Brandan) Dassey's confession. Lostinthesaus posted several transcripts showing how what you claimed he came up with himself he actually did not come up with himself. It's a few pages back.

And if I'm not misremembering you told him to stop "muddying the waters" which is funny because that is exactly what you're doing whether purposely or not by posting misremembered or false things as fact or misrepresenting other poster's points or intentions.

This is the post you are referring to yes?

here was my post that he was responding to.

Mine was paraphrased, and lost cut out what Brenden said after, so where did he correct me? His quote from the confession is pretty similar to mine except he didn't quote what brenden said after?

He posted more transcripts showing how they fed him info. I'm sure you can find them.

Your entire argument about how he knew how many times she was shot or something and on which side etc falls apart either way when he couldn't even guess that there had been any shooting in the first place so they had to feed him that.

No, I said from the start that the police brought up that she was shot. Look at my post just above. My problem was that he had details about how she was shot and how many times that he shouldn't have. That is just the shot to the head stuff, I am more concerned that he knew she was in the back of the trunk and offers a reasonable explanation why she would have been in the back of the trunk if she was burned at the burn pit. It was very lucid when he was retelling this.

Plus he guessed she was shot 10 times or something first iirc, before he said 3(?)

The other part of your post i can't remember or haven't read transcript/seen in doc so can't go into that.

He said she was shot 10 times but 3 in the head. He said this in the same string of questioning. This is not a contradiction.

that is fair.. I wouldn't expect you to argue something you haven't seen.

Not sure if it has been posted in the last 4 pages of drivel, but Kathleen Zellner has taken on Steven's case and has publicly proclaimed that he is 100% innocent. She is a very high profile defense lawyer that takes on primarily wrongful convictions, and has an excellent track record. Obviously that doesn't prove anything, but I think it is pretty uncommon for a defense lawyer to stick their neck out like that. I wonder if she is going to do any serious work on investigating who the actual killer is, if SA is indeed innocent.



edit: nm, covered fairly extensively a few days ago

Have you seen her tweets? They are horrendous. She is clearly doing this for publicity.

Shocking.

If someone says "They weren't supposed to be there." That isn't a lie.

The confusion here is a public statement was made that contradicts their orders.

True, there was a public statement made to the public that did not reflect reality. That is all you can say about it though. They had every right to be there and were required. They had to search a very large property without a lot of help. And as I pointed out earlier Lenk was needed there because he was one of the few evidence techs on the scene. Also, what would Lenks motive be to plant evidence? He was not being accused of anything in avery's lawsuit.

I don't get what you think this proves. There was evidence presented that she was shot in the head, possibly twice, but the skull wasn't in tact so nothing is conclusive.

BD could have said they shot her 20-100 times, there's no evidence to refute or corroborate such a statement.

Do you think she thinks he's not actually innocent but thinks she can get him out of prison anyway?