Again, this is a fact: Lenk's only known involvement regarding Avery and/or his wrongful conviction is in 2003 (after Steven was exonerated) when Colborn came to him with info about a 1995 call and Lenk had Colborn write a statement on it.

Based on the facts I've presented you, can you provide an explanation for why Lenk would be sued?

Are there facts I've omitted that lead you to believe Lenk would be sued, and if so, what are they?

Or is your claim that "based on Lenk's answers there was a strong indication he would be added to the lawsuit" bull****?

Theripped evidence tape was also explained. It was caused by avery's lawyers during the civil suit.

You just said that they left that out because they showed the march 1st confession already and showing his confession again would be repetitive. Ok. so why did they show any of the confessions after that if it was just repetitive?

The fact that you guys can't see when someone is clearly trying to mislead you is crazy. This is like a religion to you guys isn't it?

Holy ****.

Whether the hole in the tube is meant to be here or not is completely irrelevant. It doesn't make it any more, or any less likely that the blood was planted.

It doesn't change the opportunity that Lenk did or did not have to plant said evidence.

Do you have a copy of Lenk's deposition in full? Can you share it with us? Do you have a full copy of the case file from the civil lawsuit? Can you also share that with us?

If your answer is no, can you tell us where you are getting your "facts" from?

Well, I guess I can add an eyeroll because these comments obviously are not from the documentary.

Again, the footage was contemporaneous and accurately captured the reactions of those present. Or do you disagree?

The film followed up on that by showing Strang and J.B. discussing the evidence and what it meant. I recall (its now been about a month, so I may be wrong) Strang stating he was a bit deflated as the blood was not the smoking gun he initially though. Or do you disagree?

The prosecution's position on the blood was not presented. Well we know they refused to participate in the film, so we were never going to be shown their out-of-court discussions on the blood vial (and any comments regarding the hole).

You are thicker than a 10 year-old vial of blood without EDTA.

You are wilfully ignorant of any other portion of the documentary that follows this up.

Strang though he had a smoking gun: recall his reaction when box was opened, and his phone call after "today was a really good day."

Contrasted with his later conversations with J.B. (who has a stronger grasp of the science issues) where Strang concedes it is NOT the smoking gun.

You are either dishonest or have the attention span of a sparrow.

7 ' rn2002, with the assistance of the Wisconsin Innocence project,
Avery conunenced new DNA tests which would ultimateiy exonerate him from the
1985 wrongful conviction, and indeed match the DNA profile of Gregory Allery who
was then incarcerated for a subsequent sexual assault and, it furns out, had been a
suspect in the 1985 case all along. In the course of those efforts of the Innocence
Project' the former Manitowoc Counfy District Attorney, E. James Fitzgerald , and.
members of Avery's defense team, and perhaps others, met and opened packages
of evidence in the 1985 court file, with the court's approval, to determine what to
send out for additional tests. Notations on the outside of the white box contairi^g
Avery's blood vial indicate that DA Fitzgerald opened the box at l2:2sp.m. onJune
19' 2002' and closed it again two minutes later. It is believed that the evidence tape
seal was broken at that time so the parties could discover the contents. It is believed
that when the vial of Avery's blood was found, the box was simply closed and not
i ro) t.l
sent out for testing as the crime lab already had Avery's DNA profile on record. The
notations on the box do not indicate how the box was re-closed, but there does not
appear to be another layer of evidence tape placed over the existing broken seal.
Instead it appears the box simply was closed with a small piece of (easily removable)
scotch tape' Records reflect that the officer who prepared the transmittal of evidence
form for the transfer of the court exhibits to the Crime Lab on septembe r 1g,2002,
was none other than,,Det. Sgt.James Lenk.,,


http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...nted-Blood.pdf

Holy ****, you guys win. Cops can always plant evidence on previously convicted criminals. Guess when someone re offends they should just have a verdict returned of not guilty.

lol

First off this is a claim and not necessarily fact.

Second, do you think the defense gets free access to key, delicate evidence? They are supervised the entire time and it's on the county to reseal when they're done.

The entire point of having those types of seals and a check in check out process for the evidence room is so that we can tell who accessed what and when. We've heard reports that certain individuals did not have to check in and out to the evidence room. The incompetence of this department leaves a lot of room for malice that would not be there in a department that has its **** together

I have a copy of his transcripts, where Lenk states that this is his only involvement. If it wasn't his only involvement, then surely Strang would have brought it up in his cross-examination and/or the series would have included it.

Do you know of another way he was involved that would indicate he would likely be sued?

It was a 10 hr doc and no I do not recall that conversation with strang that you are referring too and apparently many others don't as well given all the quotes provided to you itt.

I do not accept any of your "opinions" as "fact." Sorry. You have proven over and again that your "facts" are suspect.

Also, again, I did not make the claim that "based on Lenk's answers there was a strong indication he would be added to the lawsuit." I stated what I read, I have stated that many times. At this point, because you continue to misrepresent that, I must assume you are trolling me.

I don't appreciate it. Personally, I think you should be banned from the thread.

In any event, Lenk was involved enough that he was deposed (in case you don't know taking a deposition is an expensive procedure). S.A.'s lawyers could have been thinking a number of things about the nature and scope of Lenk's involvement.

I was not there and I am not privy to the lawyers' thoughts and file. So, if they were going to add Lenk, I merely speculate that it would be as a member of a civil conspiracy.

The lawyers admitted it in his appeal. I just listed it above with a link.

Again, the ripping of the evidence seal is irrelevant.



It doesn't make it any more, or any less likely that the blood was planted.



It doesn't change the opportunity that Lenk did or did not have to plant said evidence.

IMO the opinions of Lenk are really almost 100% a function of the way he was depicted in the series, not on any real-life horrible things he did.

He was at the very least portrayed as a shady cop who planted evidence. At the very worst he was portrayed as a suspect in Halbach's murder. Most of this had zero to do with his actual statements, but with how the show was constructed/edited.

I mean, one episode concluded with him taking the stand, accompanied by dramatic music. After he stated his name, the screen cut to black and we got the end credits. The obvious inference was that this was a pivotal moment - the dirty cop (maybe murderer?) was about to finally be questioned on the stand. It was edited as a cliffhanger.

I guess it shows how the way information is presented can sway people's opinions. He was just a cop investigating the case. He wasn't being sued by Avery, he didn't have a vendetta. His only transgression was possibly being more involved in the investigation than he should have been, given the local county PD had handed the case over - but this was clearly done with the blessing of the primary investigators.

That doesn't mean said conversation was not in the film. It was.

Watch it again (for the first time).

Nope, they never explain the vial in the series, hence pretty much everyone initially believing the hole in the vial was not normal until people who work with them debunked it. I guarantee you thought the hole in the vial was not normal at first as well.

You're referring to this quote from Strang: "The blood I'm more... a little bit more worried about than I was when I first discovered it and was very happy and you know. Because I don't trust the FBI at all and I think that they're gonna come up with some dishonest test that somehow claims that the blood in the vial is different than what was found at the scene. And that'll be a little bit harder to overcome."

Again, the show never explains the hole in the vial.

If you don't think the show was deceptive in this area, I don't know what to tell you.

PegTown: What is the nature of that document. From the snippet it appears it is from a brief. My guess is that it is merely argument from the prosecution.

I too have read Lenk's testimony in the SA trail. I have not seen a copy of his transcripts from the deposition. You seem certain that Strang had a copy of them.

I'm won't comment on Lenk's involvement in the deposition, nor his likelihood of being included in the civil suit, because we (I mean, you me and everyone) have no actual way of knowing if he would have been included or not.

But by all means keep asking that question over and over like it makes some huge difference.

Again, the prosecution didn't put forth a motive for SA to murder TH, nor did they put forth a narrative that fit the evidence. If we aren't going to hold the prosecution to a standard of needing to provide a motive, but simply opportunity, I'm not sure why we'd hold the defense to a higher standard when discussing the possibility/likelihood of Lenk/Colborn planting evidence.

Close, it was actually a defendant's statement!

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...nted-Blood.pdf

I didn't say it wasn't in the film, just that I do not recall it. Can you please stop saying I didn't watch it? Kind of annoying because you are insinuating that I am a liar and I don't appreciate you doing that. Thanks,

You brought up the ripped tape friend. Not me.

No fraley, oski is wrong again, unless he thinks this quote from Strang/Buting

is an adequate explanation for the hole in the vial lol