You cant in the same breath said this all stems from manitiwoc particpating in the investigation while also questioning manitiwoc PDs behavior before calumet took over. Lol

I think if the county acknowledges that there is a perceived conflict of interest and describes the steps they're taking to avoid it being an issue, I expect them to adhere to that. When they don't and the circumstances surrounding every piece of evidence they find is questionable then no I don't think he can be found guilty.

I think it's fair to ask the county to tread extremely carefully when investigating and prosecuting a man they have already wrongfully convicted once. That could mean active body cameras required for anyone engaged in a search. Or it could mean requesting outside resources to perform the investigation, which they did, and staying out of things and letting those resources handle it, which they failed to do.

Active body cameras? What year do you think this was?

Not every cop, but planting evidence and lying is common enough that advancement of career, meeting quotas, or just ensuring that people they *think* are guilty go to prison is enough motive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/ny...lice.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/op...nder-oath.html

There doesn't need to be part of a $36M lawsuit hanging over their heads.

I d like to know how often they have to use babysitters for investigators.
That fact alone would give me a huge doubt about any evidence found.

"Confession" and Kratz going on TV saying he is guilty before he was found guilty changed the atmosphere.

His being framed in the past the same police prosecuting him again changed the atmosphere.

It doesn't matter if he did the crime or not. It is allowing evidence to be heard in an impartial fashion that was compromised.

I understand this. I was laughing at the hypocritical stance epeg was taking.

The sepculation of manitiwoc planting/misconduct woukd havr occured no matter what is my point.

Just because you say something is hypocritical doesn't mean it is.

What are you even talking about.

MC DA goes on TV on Nov 5th and says they are handing over the investigation to CC.

When was the key found?

Yes, I know that is what it means. What is different between what you said and what I said? You realize this would mean different things to different people right?

The first link is the insurance company of one of the sheriffs arguing against paying coverage. What do you want me to read here?

I mean in your guys world its almost as if SA could just do whatever he wanted since this motive and means would always exist in your mind.

Efrompegtown,

How often have you argued the colburn did something sketchy regarding yhe license plate check that happened prior to that?

You cant in the same breath say we wouldnt be having this conversation about MC misconduct if they removed themselves completely from the investigstion like they said they would while also discussing the colburn phone call as suspicious and likely pointing to misconduct and lying.

You being hypocritical allows me to call you hypocritical.

Also i hope you noticed the quote i researched for you on your request regarding your statements of bias. I assume you ignoring it means you are admitting you are currently trying to paint a rosier picture of your statements then what actuall happened?

There are two separate and distinct potential duties at issue:

1. Coverage (will the claim be paid); and

2. Defense (does the insurance co. have a duty to defend).

The insurance co. has a clear exclusion for number one; the real issue in the declaratory relief action was over the duty to defend. If insurance company prevails on that, it will not provide a defense and the insured has to foot his own bill. That is significant.

Yeah, I thought one of the main defense theories is that Colborn found the car on November 3rd and then him and Lenk planted all the evidence?

The whole "MCSD is involved in the investigation" thing can explain the key, but it doesn't really explain how something like the bones were planted. I thought the theories were either that it was the "true killer" who planted that or that the cops planted everything before November 5th.

Whoever it was, the theory is still possible even if MCSD never officially participated in the investigation at all.

I don't really understand what you're asking.

Ok, it likely wouldn't have been near as big an issue had they actually recused themselves. I apologize for using the incorrect vernacular.

My stance hasn't and didn't change.

Next time dont type lololololool and then blatantly contradict your previous stances in this thread. Its a bad look

And lol at you not changing. You went from saying all yhe bias came from the prosecution denying to particpate to saying some and acting like you admitted there were other biases.

A large part of this stems from them basically giving 0 ****s. Right down to having colburn do the Perp walk with these guys.

Think its fair to be suspicious when they say they won't participate then do it anyway. Not so much when they are investigating a missing person in their own county.

This exchange sums up efrompegtown:





The above exchange sums up efrompegtown.

It's as if Fraley doesn't read or understand the things he posts.

The above quote sums up efrompegtown.

I agree. Dont forget i am on team not guilty. I just enjoy calling out saus, efrompegtown, and smacc when they say hilariously stupid things because everyone likes ganging up on team guilty because they disgree with them.

Both super active sides are hilarious.

This is what fraley posted:

While I don't agree the insurance was definitely going to pay for the lawsuit (and this isn't for the guy who drew the sketch, he meant the former sheriff Koceurek) he's right in that we only have evidence of the sheriff's personal insurance refusing to pay (as the county's insurance is supposed to cover him instead, unless he was acting outside of the scope of his employment). He's also right that the insurance company covered the settlement.

I'd be curious if SA had a good lawyer when this all went down if he has a chance of stopping them via legal means from participating.

If so it seems to me their statement should then be legally binding.

Bumping this, since you never answered it:

http://www.techinsider.io/making-mur...quality-2016-1