Yes I agree. It's one of the scenarios you mentioned.

This isn't wholly true and is mostly speculation on your part.

The system only allows them to strike 6 jurors.

When you're dealing with a small town jury selection there are likely a ton of bad apples and they had to make a judgment call. They struck people they deemed worse than this juror, but does not mean they wanted this person on the jury.

It's like if you're picking suitable candidates to marry your daughter. You are given a lot of 30 trolls. You can only eliminate 6 of them from having a chance to marry your daughter. You throw out the worst 6, but the other 24 trolls still remain and are eligible to marry your daughter.

I'm sorry, I know it hurts to think Strang was being disingenuous about this, but you don't seem to fully understand.

Everything I said was fact, except for the last sentence which IMO is a reasonable assumption based on the facts.

Here's a simple summary:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_for_cause

The problem is the judge can strike any juror. This judge was horrible. Although I agree the size of the area really limits how many people can be removed, even by an incompetent judge.

You are really the worst. So you are admitting the judge effed it up.

You really take the time to document yourself being wrong? Trust me you don't need the help.

So you think the judge should have struck the juror even though no one asked him to? Ok then.

So reasonable assumptions based on facts are OK for you to make, but not for the rest of posters ITT. Roger!

You said my post was "mostly speculation". It was not.

I hope I have clarified the issue regarding the juror for you (i.e. that it was never an issue back then).

Reasonable assumptions based on facts are OK for anyone to make.

Except Strang has stated in interviews recently that they would have struck him, but there were 6 others that were 'worse' than him.

So I read the first 3 pages of the thread and the last 3, what is the actual thread consensus?

Of the people posting on here, regarding Steven:

Most people think that he should have been found "not guilty" and that the trial was unfair. (a lot of these people are just going by what was shown in the documentary)

Some people believe he's almost certainly innocent. (IMO most of these people are conspiracy nutters)

A few people (myself included) believe the trial transcripts show that his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and that even though the investigation and/or trial may not have been perfect, the transcripts and other documents show that they were fair.

I swear I just went over this...

Facts:

Lenk had unfettered access to the evidence room

The evidence tape was cut open on the evidence box containing Steve Avery's blood sample

Lenk knew that blood sample was there

Steve Avery's blood was found in the RAV4

Reasonable Assumption:

Lenk accessed Steve Avery's blood and placed it in the RAV4

Based on the actual facts (which I've clarified for you above, let me know if you dispute any of them), I'd say your assumption is speculation at best, proven false to "a reasonable degree of scientific certainty" at worst.

Is PoorSkillz a criminal defence lawyer? I know Strang is.

I think I'll defer to Strang.

Michael Griesbach is a DA.

Strang claimed he used all his peremptory strikes on other people. This is probably true, and I am not disputing this.

But he omitted the fact that he could have still attempted to strike the man for cause (there is no limit on these). This is not debatable; it's a fact that lawyers are able to do this. I think even oski (as biased as he may be) would admit this.

Hence why I feel Strang was being disingenuous with his answer in that interview.

Feel free to believe whatever you want, but you're clearly wrong.

1. The poster, regardless of who he or she may actually be, by admission has no particular insight into the criminal matter. Indeed, as to the murder, this poster merely rehashes talking points that we have seen all over the place already - nothing of note is added, just a rehash of prior points.

2. It is hard not to recognize that the poster purportedly represented the County in the civil lawsuit and therefore could be biased.

3. I have doubts as to whether this poster really was an attorney for the county (or, technically, for the insurance policy covering the county). The settlement would undoubtedly be "confidential" thus no attorney can speak about the settlement terms or material facts of the case. I would have a hard time believing that this quasi-anonymous (but not really anonymous) poster would risk civil penalties for these disclosures.

4. Under this posters analysis, the civil settlement was worth $0.00 (as it is claimed S.A. was going to get $400,000.00 from restitution fund). This comment was to lead the reader to believe S.A.'s case was without merit. It wasn't: even with S.A. being charged with murder, the matter settled for $400,000.00. That fact matters - with the plaintiff in the worst possible light, the case still settled for $400k. It is easy to conclude that if S.A. was not charged with murder and the case continued, that the settlement would have been as analyzed previously - millions, perhaps over 10 million.

5. I don't buy the "well, S.A. was not railroaded in the first trial because it was a reasonable mistake." If you read closely, the poster relies on an untested legal theory that the M.C.S.D. did not have a duty to investigate the information provided in the phone call from Brown County or information from M.C.S.D. That nicely skirts the question - why was this potentially exculpatory phone call essentially ignored? The "lawyer" does not explain why there would be no duty in the context of a Civil Rights suit - maybe under the doctrine of negligence a duty could not be established, but the Civil Rights action is a different matter.

6. Coverage issues. I will take the poster at his or her word - that no motion to bifurcate coverage issues was filed. I will also point out that given how far along the case was (one year from filing, but discovery just beginning) that doing so would be premature. The insurance would want to see how the claim develops before taking that next step - also, at least for the County, the duty to defend was not at issue. It was an issue to at least one of the individuals, but I do not know how far along they were (for example, if the case had gone through demurrers and other challenges to the complaint, the case would have only started in earnest). Often an insurance defense will try to defend the case by attacking the pleading showing no legal duty as a matter of law. From the timing of things, I would surmise this portion of the proceedings had concluded early summer, and then the parties were moving forward with written discovery and depositions.

7. In that same vein (poster attempting to point to lack of a specific legal filing to indicate strength of case) I also note that no defendant filed for summary judgment, either. Of course, just like with the motion to bifurcate coverage issues that would have also been premature.


So, regardless of the poster's bona fides, I don't believe his or her opinion adds anything of note to the debate.

Let's see if anyone else has any dirty deeds:

Sherry Culhane's Crime Lab:

* An analyst in 2002 falsely claimed to have done a fingerprint match, then submitted falsified documentation to support it. The person drew a written reprimand.

* An analyst in an unnamed portion of the lab was fired in 2004 after supervisors documented "an extremely high error rate (and) a pattern in inattentiveness" over three years.

* A DNA analyst was suspended for two days for being drunk on the job in 2006. The misconduct occurred around the same time and in the same laboratory where evidence in the Avery case was analyzed, Buting said.

* An analyst received a two-day suspension in 2004 for incorrectly eliminating a suspect in a fingerprint match. The same analyst had "false positive" fingerprint matches in two previous instances.

* In another instance in 2004, an analyst received a letter of reprimand for erroneously identifying a fingerprint for a background check.

* A fingerprint technician was suspended for three days in 2005 for a series of incidents, including taking fingerprint cards home and making two erroneous identifications on background checks.

The above are documented occurences. They are not conjecture or allegations.

Lol that's not a reasonable assumption. Not even close. If you and others honestly think it is, that explains a lot I suppose.

Thanks saus for providing the reasons Sherry(Burp!!! Excuse me) Culhane did not trust another analysis to get the DNA test's done correctly.
Opening herself up to a conflict of interest in the process(since she tested the HAIR sample that convicted SA in 1985) & Sherry was under that much pressure she forgot to process any/all of the tests until 5 months later & had to be reminded by fassbender to PLACE THE BULLET IN THE GARAGE/TRAILER, cool got it.

Must be tough not to trust the people you work with day in day out with routine DNA/fingerprint analysis, so I guess when new staff come in that's its acceptable for Sherry to show these new analysis the CORRECT way to follow procedures, except SHE ****ED that up to & tries to hid it from her supervisor & another co-signature.(I guess with all the **** ups before SHERRY new it was nearly impossible to get SACKED from this Crime Lab).

Drunk on the Job in a CRIME LAB & you don't get sacked JFC/WTF/OMG!!!
I guess that's why WI has a major drinking problem.

Thanks for you opinion. While it seems you disagree with some of the poster's opinions, it also seems you agree this poster knows what they are talking about.

I think the most notable takeaway for me here was getting an opinion on what the lawsuit settlement would be from the perspective of a lawyer directly involved in the case (although this is unverified) - that is between $400,000 and $2,000,000.

I've seen an analysis of the financials of Manitowoc County at that time (maybe I'll post it here later) and the county would have easily been able to afford this lawsuit, even if it were for $6,000,000.

Basically, it's my firm opinion that the narrative of this lawsuit threatening the county's livelihood (and subsequently of a frame-job to stop this lawsuit) is pure bull****.

Thanks again.

The judge can also strike on his own. And you somehow think not pissing off sn already incompetent judge is not a concern of a defense attorney. Technically they could ask for every jury for five years to be striked for cause.

How do you think that plays with the judge? Btw judges are often less ambitious and/or less capable attorneys. Imagine the cluster that is judgeship in Wisconsin given the pool of attorneys they pull from.

I always feel like this is the first criminal trial you have ever paid any attention to ever. It just seems you lack layman fundamental understandings of how things work in the real world.

Since neither you nor I were there for jury selection we haven't the faintest idea of what the actual procedure was like. You can't just read the transcripts and disregard the other 95% of dynamics in human interaction.

Also lol if you think that judge would have ever struck that juror even though it presented a clear conflict of interest.

I'll just assume all these are true, that still doesn't change the fact that literally 0 of these incidents pertain to Steven Avery's case, including the bolded, as that analyst was not working on the case at all.

I would like to know what mistakes you can find in any crime lab and if this list stands out distinctly from any other lab. If it doesn't (and I'm guessing it doesn't), are you of the opinion we should just free everyone?