Thanks for your post as a whole that I didn't quote.

I acknowledge there's a conflict of interest with Manitowoc being involved. This alone does not preclude a man from being found guilty.

The conflict of interest was a huge point of the trial. How big the conflict of interest actually was, and whether it had any effect on the investigation, is highly debatable. The jury deliberated on this and weighing the evidence found Steven guilty.

I happen to agree with the jury's decision based on what I feel is the overwhelming evidence pointing to Steven doing the crime and the complete lack of evidence that Steven was framed (including a reliable EDTA test showing with a reasonable degree of certainty - though not proving, since that is impossible - that the blood tested was not from the vial).

How about Dassey?

I was mainly referring to your(it may have been someone else, if so sorry) justifcation as to why it was acceptable lenk was involved because he was one of the only evidence techs. That's just not acceptable. Any and all involvement by manitowoc personnel at the crime scene is bad and shouldn't be justified.

I do agree that police misconduct shouldn't be an auto get out of jail free card, but the evidence should at a minimum have an asterisk that is well communicated to the jurors, or simply completely thrown out.

I think you would be better served arguing for his guilt solely and avoiding arguing as defense that it was a fair trial.

It was well communicated to the jurors. It was the entire defense. The jurors didn't buy it and neither has any appeals court.

There wasn't anything to 'buy'. The jurors are told what evidence to consider. It's up to the judge to remove evidence. I understand the jurors were well aware.

My point is defending manitowoc's involvement after being told they would only be supplying tools or whatever is a losing battle. Objectively they participated more than they are supposed to when there is a conflict of interest.

I am fine with the evidence not being thrown out (dasseys confession under len being allowed is baffling though).

At the end of the day the jury had zero chance of voting not guilty based on its makeup. Best case was a hung jury (i don't know Wisconsin law on this)


Let's not forget that according to the excused juror the original vote after the court proceedings a majority were leaning non guilty.

So you don't understand reasonable doubt either?

The guy that hacked in to her voicemail, admitted to listening to messages and said they did not delete any did delete some innocuous message because it might have been embarrassing? That's what you are going with? Or someone else besides the admitted hacker also hacked her voicemail and deleted messages that had no relevance?

You think that is a red herring?

By the way these messages were removed after she was missing? You don't think this could have any relevance to the case?

That isn't reasonable doubt, that is speculation. Reasonable doubt should not be based on speculation. And yes, it is ultimately a red herring because there are reasonable assumptions where SA murdered TH and someone else deleted the vms or he deleted the vms himself. Neither of which have anything to do with the evidence presented to the jury that they are supposed to be using to reach their decision.

You should never expect in any trial for every question to be answered. That is an unreasonable expectation from you. In every trial there are pieces of the overall puzzle that will remain missing.

Her twitter account look like the fake anonymous one most of the time, but at least she post some decent link here and there.
I dont have very high expectation but i m definitly rooting for her to find some really dirty stuff on thoses cops and suing the **** of them

The term reasonable doubt means a doubt
8 based upon reason and common sense. It is a
9 doubt for which a reason can be given, arising
10 from a fair and rational consideration of the
11 evidence or lack of evidence. It means such a
12 doubt as would cause a person of ordinary
13 prudence to pause or hesitate when called upon to
14 act in the most important affairs of life.
15 A reasonable doubt is not a doubt which
16 is based on mere guesswork or speculation. A
17 doubt which arises merely from sympathy or from
18 fear to return a verdict of guilt is not a
19 reasonable doubt.
20 A reasonable doubt is not a doubt such
21 as may be used to escape the responsibility of a
22 decision. While it is your duty to give the
23 defendant the benefit of every reasonable doubt,
24 you are not to search for doubt, you are to
25 search for the truth.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...-2007Feb12.pdf

With all the questionable decisions that judge made you expect his definition of reasonable doubt as read to the jury in this case should be the definition we accept?

what episode was the end of avery's trial , i want to listen to the judge speech at the end again , in my memory it was insane that he was talking about the rape avery was framed for like it was really part of his past.

Lol.. This definition or a very close variation of it is commonly read in trials when reasonable doubt is defined to a jury. And I don't know which questionable decisions you think the judge made.

if you are referring to him not allowing the defense to bring up alternative suspects.. that is actually wisconsin law. Its called "legitimate tendency" it reads as follows:

Third-party defense evidence may be admissible under the legitimate tendency test if the defendant can show that the third party had (1) the motive and (2) the opportunity to commit the charged crime, and (3) can provide some evidence to directly connect the third person to the crime charged which is not remote in time, place or circumstance.

Since the defendant could not provide any evidence for (3) any alternative suspects were not allowed to be considered.

I don't believe he brought up the rape? At least not in the way you are thinking. he did say something along the lines of him being a danger to society because he was only free for 2 years and committed a crime like this that quickly when his life was about to turn out for the best.

that s why i want to rewatch it, because that sounded really bad in my head and i cannot believe it s that bad

I would agree that if he used the rape charge as justification to give him a harsher sentence that would be beyond ****ed up. That isn't what he said though.

I've already discussed Dassey in detail previously ITT. His case is more complicated and mainly depends on interpretation of his confessions. From what I've read, I'm certain he's involved, though I'm not certain to what degree. Saying that, I can't necessarily say the jury's decision was wrong.


Regarding the involvement of MCSD, I agree: in hindsight it's easy to say they shouldn't have been involved at all, mainly for perception's sake. What you have to remember though is at the time there was a missing person investigation spanning hundreds of acres and thousands of cars needing to be searched. It required a lot of manpower, and MCSD was obviously the closest resource. When the investigation was put together, the focus was on finding a missing woman, not on making sure there was no conflict of interest in case Steven murdered someone. Also, no one is saying Lenk was the only evidence tech, but he was qualified, and they needed as many qualified evidence techs as they could use.


The issue I have with this is there isn't actually evidence of police misconduct. The evidence was discussed and given a big asterisk by the defense. Some of it was reasonably suspicious, such as the key. A lot of it was just completely baseless accusations by the defense (because it was their only option really). The jury ultimately decides whether those asterisks are warranted.


I take issue with this as well. Let's say there was police misconduct. That doesn't make the trial unfair. A new trial isn't going to change whatever happened in the investigation. There's no reason to believe the jury didn't weigh all the evidence against Steven, and all the speculation that said evidence was planted, in a fair manner. Just because they may have came to a different conclusion than you, doesn't mean the trial was unfair.

The only thing I've seen that might be evidence of an unfair trial imo is the allegations by the one juror saying they traded votes or whatever, but we don't really know the story there or if it's even true. I think investigating that is Zellner's best avenue. Regarding the recused juror and his "only 3 guilty on initial vote", he seems a bit unreliable (see Avery's appeal decision). Another juror claims the initial vote was only 3 not guilty. Another juror claims the initial vote didn't happen at all.

The defense chose Manitowoc jury, they chose to allow the sheriff's dad on the jury, they chose not to have a mistrial when the juror was recused. IMO it's because they thought this jury would buy their framing theory.

They also chose not to attempt to test the EDTA despite having ample time to do so (and the issue of the resources not being available to do so was BS imo) and tried to block the prosecution from doing so ("Because I don't trust the FBI at all and I think that they're gonna come up with some dishonest test" lol this is an actual quote).

This is pretty much where I am at with Dassey as well. I think there are aspects of the interrogation that are similar to the "reid technique" I however, think they were fair enough to prevent a coerced confession by throwing in false truths and judging his responses.

The example I came up with itt was when they asked something like:

"did you see the tatoo on her stomach" (TH does not have a tatoo on her stomach)

If branden was just going along with what he thought they wanted him to say he would have just said "yes" but he said "no"

Also, in most coerced confessions there is often long periods of being shut out from the public without water or food or whatever.. nothing like that happened here, he just came out in told them 20 minutes into the interview. An interview him and his mom both said was ok.

He continually lied since november. First there was no Bonfire, Then there was a bonfire but he wasn't there long, then he was at the bonfire for an extended period of time, then he was at the bonfire and helped steven clean up oil in the garage, then he was at the bonfire and helped steven clean up redish brown stuff in the garage etc.. He had to keep covering up lie after lie after lie.

I also think it is concerning that he knew parts of the trial that he shouldn't have known. Where she was shot in the head, that she was shot more than once in the head, that she was put in the back of the rav 4 after she died etc..

And the similarities between what his cousin kayla told her counselor and what he told police are scary.

Right, because the police didn't investigate any other possibilities. Kinda tough huh?

The defense can do their own investigation if they choose. And actually the did investigate other possibilities. They took dna tests of everyone that lived on the property.

J.Buting Interview.

http://www.michaelspratt.com/poadcast-legal-matters/

If only they had the key earlier they could tell whose DNA, aside from TH's, the cops cleaned off of it.

The defences role in the criminal justice system isn't to investigate the crime. And they don't have the tools available that the prosecution has (or the pockets).

I believe that they said they couldn't find a lab doing the testing. Hey also did t have the benefit of being able to just have the FBI re-tool their lab in order to do the test.

Also, things cost money. The defence doesn't have the deep pockets of the prosecution.

Is it this pontiac grand AM GT 1993?

http://i.imgur.com/Vgd2YQF.png