Really? I mean Jeez Fraley, open your eyes ffs.

Every person who worked for the MCSO had access to the evidence room as No LOG or entry system was used.
Never once did the Clerk of court take note of ANYONE from MCSO entering, leaving or for what purpose the visit would have been for.
Jeez I'd bet the Mantiowoc Library had better security.

Ohh but the log book does change, did you not see that LENK'S name was written in between 2 officers names all squashed up so that he could say what times he had been there.

Jeez again.
Oski was correct & the sign only proves that TH had previous contact with SA, nothing more unless you had been tainted by sweaty sweaty news media B.S.

Really? Why?
And what does it matter if they both new what the other was going to do, I.E distract & assist.

There was NO LOG set up when Remiker arrived lOl Nor did he set 1 up. SO who was doing what again?
Defo not following protocol thats all in Know lOl.

Her telephone number was on a for sale sign next to an address that no one lives in. You don't find this odd at all? I know its circumstantial.

It doesn't matter.

Car is called in,

Dispatch calls remiker because he is the one working the missing persons case,

remiker arrives at the scene and sets up a parameter so no one can enter that road,

Blood was in the car at this point. So remiker had to physically put the blood in the car. If it was planted.

IMO No, I said what It could have been, I'll repeat it.......... Hustle shot's & a change of location to do those shots to protect both parties from unwarranted scrutiny.( Small Town Politic's-Tax)

I assume that if TH did Hustle shots that she was avoiding Tax, is that fair?

A reason for why No Footprints from the location of the Rav4, whats your explanation for this Fraley?
In fact why no footprints from either the Quarry, Firepit, Burn barrel area-SA Yard & surrounding area of the back of the Scrapyard for fresh footprints( exit zones)

ummm why couldn't the car planter have put the blood in?

And who exactly do you think could have planted both the car and his blood?

What? the murder happened on october 31st, the car was discovered on november 5th. What the heck are you talking about?

Coburn or lenk?

Not sure what others are saying, but the sign was used as evidence because it had the phone number, not for the address. From the trial, it seemed like no one had any idea what the address meant - it belongs to a creepy looking farmhouse 15 minutes away.

So the address on the sign wasn't really used as evidence of Steven's guilt, but it is still interesting to wonder just why the heck the address was on there. The same can be said about his notepad that read "back to patio door".



Do you think they killed her too? Or found her dead body in the car?

Let's hear your theory for this conspiracy!

I don't know who killed her, but I'm reasonably sure that Coburn found the car when he called in on the 3rd if I recall the date correctly

Based on what?

Where do you think he found it?

Why do you think he didn't report it?

Did he know the victim was already dead at the time, and how?

Anyone. I'm just saying that your point that it couldve only been remiker is clearly wrong

@ Based on his call, his lying about the call, the voice in the background of the call saying "there's the car" (or something to that effect, I can't remember the exact quote).

Don't know why, my best guess for a motive for the police would be that the chief wanted to get Avery put away for something because of the lawsuit and because he inexplicably still believed he was guilty of the rape

He sucks at reporting everything

He may or may not have, but I'm gonna assume that if he was part of a frame job then yes

When did he lie about the call? Have you read his full testimony regarding the call?

Have you listened to the whole call? Can you show me where someone says "there's the car"?






Do you really believe that just because their boss says so that cops would plant a car and dead body on someone's property to frame them while allowing the real killer to go free? What would you do if your boss asked you to do something like that?

Ok, lets follow this train of thought then. If the blood was NOT in the car when it was planted, remiker had to be involved correct?

Lol you are so misleading all the time. What is that adress did people investigate it. Do you have some evidence that something happened there. Answer must be to no to everything so our conclusion is that you are full of **** for some unknown motivés.

Why people think you are either super dumb or possibly a shill is that you are arguing a super weird position. You are dismissing a ****load of police wrong doing that are at best huge négligences and at worse plain criminal acts and then try to redirect everything to some super minor détails.

When you try to pretend that the lack of procedure following by a previously guilty department while investigating a previouly wronged by them man you are taking an absurd stance.
Revot while having a scary view on the case at least doesnt looks like a troll.

Btw moor 8 is released.
I cannot wait for him to be done with the documentary and realise that the reality was worse than the biased documentary when he start reading additional stuff

But your post said: remiker arrives, sets up a perimeter, blood was in the car at this point.

I'm not sure what hypotheticals you are trying to pose now.

I don't know the search details or when the blood was discovered to comment specifically on remiker

I am just asking you. You said the blood could have been put there by the "car planter". If it wasn't, remiker had to be involved because he was first on the scene.

Remiker arrives and there is blood (according to him) so he is lying if blood was planted. Unless the planter planted blood. so I wanted to discuss that for a second but first I need you to admit if blood was NOT in the car when remiker arrived remiker was involved in this setup.

Interesting, so you think the link you posted about the police report is more relevant than the link I posted? I'd argue the conclusion you are trying to draw is less justified than mine. Mine is a circumstantial piece of evidence that you need to draw inferences on to reach a conclusion. Yours is a dishonest summary of a police report. So maybe you should take a look at what you are posting itt before you start calling someone dumb because the only shills I see here are you avery fans.

All the questions you asked about the sign and the farmhouse are posted itt by the way.

as for the procedure errors you guys keep pointing out, most of them are just red herrings created by conspiracy theorists. Saying, "why was no sign in sheet created immediately" is not pointing out police misconduct for example. Asking why pictures were not taken of the bones in the burnpit (assuming they weren't because we only have access to SOME of the photos presented at the trial, not even all the photos police took were presented at trial) is not police misconduct, there are several reasons why those pictures may not have been taken.

The fact is, there is not one piece of direct evidence that suggests anything was planted and there is a ton of direct evidence that shows avery committed these crimes.