So there's evidence from the police themselves that the RAV4 was put there by the police and that had no effect on the GUILTY crowd?

you dont know anything wait till you can read the masterpiece written by ken kratz

I posted a Q&A with someone involved with both the case and documentary this thread is discussing. In the Q&A, he is only discussing the same case and documentary this thread is discussing.

I am not "shilling", but if your issue is because his book is mentioned, I will consider removing that part next time.

Any issues beyond that, I'm happy to discuss it with Yeti or another mod with authority on this forum.



This log is nothing new and has been known about for months now.

3 scenarios I can think of:

1. This is the standard way they enter in the evidence (e.g. Nov 3 is the date the Rav4 was reported missing, and after Nov 5, the code was updated to "evidence/seized").
   
   
2. This is a typo and someone forgot to change the date when entering this in.
   
   
3. Colborn found the Rav4 on Nov 3 and decided to officially report it despite using it in the greatest frame-job of all time.
   

1 and 2 seem way more likely to me. How about you, microbet?

1 is ******ed and no way they do that
2 I m surprised they cannot check the date of the entry in the database, that could be fun
3 no one said it s colborn who reported it, most likely someone else job to log it. We all know colborn take 10 years to log stuff, so that s a given

Why doesn't law enforcement personnel just put this issue of "doubt" to rest and say this was standard operating procedure OR we messed up?

As it stands, your 3rd scenario has a non-zero chance considering there is a log book and phone call that appear to corroborate that a sheriff personnel was looking at the car.

If you read the transcripts, it is rather odd that Colburn is certain that he didn't have her cell phone number, but can only proffer a guess of how he came about her license plate information.

And what would be the purpose of him calling into the police department to verify the license plate that Weigert supposedly just told him moments ago? That 90 seconds later he can't even recall the conversation that was played to him in court.

[QUOTE=golfnutt;50691045] 1. You didn't make claims about the Sheriff's department killing her or covering up the real killer, but some of the pro-Avery posters in this thread were and are doing so. When they were called out for being conspiracy nutbars, you said that the real nutbars were the Avery-guilty posters. That's what I was responding to. Again, you believe that the evidence does not support guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - even if I don't agree with you, I will grant that your position is defensible. The position that Colborn is the killer and similar claims are not defensible at all (and are on the same level as 9/11 truth and UFO conspiracies and the like.)

2. I explain that Dassey was convicted of rape by the fact that the jury believed he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

3. I still don't follow the logic about the teeth. Why couldn't they have been smashed to pieces? It's well known that dental records can be used for identification, isn't it possible a killer trying to cover his tracks might do that? And how does the presence or absence of teeth point to Avery or away from Avery? It seems completely irrelevant.

No one is putting the cops on a pedestal or saying that no cop is ever capable of planting evidence.

But it's like anything else - you need to base your conclusions off of evidence. There's no evidence the blood in the car was planted. In fact there's pretty clear evidence that it wasn't planted (no EDTA). Moreover Avery had a cut on his hand in the days following the murder. Pretty strong coincidence that the death of someone last seen with him, her cell phone ceasing to work around the time and place that she was with him, and the police launching a massive conspiracy to frame him all happened the same day he cut his hand in a completely unrelated incident, no?

You're going to give your pop psychology ("Why would he leave blood in clear view on the dash?") more weight than the scientific evidence? To me that's not rational.

[QUOTE=lkasigh;50692077][QUOTE=golfnutt;50691045]

Agreed.

Dassey was the only one charged with rape too. The same crime scene, the same victim, and Dassey played (if we believe the State and BD) and an extremely minor part.


Yes, anything is possible. It seems that we have the most brilliant killer in the world and the most inept. Wrapped into one person that works at an auto salvage yard and is dating a person locked up for DUI. He leaves one tooth, one bullet fragment, and one key. Cleans up 99.99% of a crime scene. We all make mistakes. And yet the best cover in 4 days he can devise for an SUV is a couple of branches.

SA worked at an auto salvage yard. I would be surprised if he didn't have cuts and bruises all over his body from that line of work.

Didn't the search team leader/ex-BF have cuts all over his hands. Pretty strong coincidence at the same time his ex-GF disappears?

People cut their hands all the time without being involved in murders. Especially if they work in a scrap yard and do physical labor, like loading metal roofing on a truck or installing metal roofing on the cabin in Crivitz.

I'm thinking there's a pretty reasonable chance that it is a coincidence a manual laborer would have a cut on his hand without there being any connection to a murder allegedly executed with a rifle.

I suspect Zellner will have a pretty good scenario with evidence to back it up.

We just have to be patient.

I found the post interesting. I'm guessing if his book was about how the police had obviously framed SA for murder, you'd have no problem with some quotes from the author.

Kratz is apparently claiming "there are parts of this case that no one else knows.”

Seems a shame he didn't produce this stuff during the trials.

I suppose we'll need Colburn and Lenk to come out and shake some more furniture so the needed evidence will appear like rabbits out of a hat.

LOL law enforcement is not obliged to counter every inane conspiracy theory that internet armchair detectives dream up.

If it comes up in the Zellner proceedings, I'm sure they will have a very unexciting answer that will not be believed by the conpiratards anyway.

The progression usually goes:

1) No mistakes were made
2) Mistakes were made
3)Well, maybe one guy went rogue
4)Yeah, it was a conspiracy, but we don't do that any more (wink)

Why is the manner in which he cut his hand relevant at all? They found his blood, and he had a cut on his hand. Your hands are the part of your body that things come into contact the most.

I'm sure lots of people in the county cut their hands that day. But they weren't the last person seen with a murder victim and their blood wasn't found in the murder victim's car.

I guess the point is that if Avery hadn't had any cuts on his hands, that would have been very strong evidence of planting of the blood. The cuts just further support the scenario of no planting, along with the EDTA tests.

[QUOTE=golfnutt;50692311][QUOTE=lkasigh;50692077] I'm still not following the logic. What is the relevance of the number of teeth found with the body? How does it lend support to either Avery's guilt or innocence?

Because you can't have it both ways.

Either the guy is a dullard from rural nowhere, and pretty inept etc...

Or, he's the best crime scene cleaner in the world.

But if he's the best crime scene cleaner, and able to kill a woman, rape her, cut her throat, shoot her a bunch of times, clean his bedroom/trailer of any trace of that, clean the garage so well that nothing is found etc, and still have time to have dinner with mom and dad, and make multiple calls to his g/f and public defender, then it's hard to believe he would also leave a blood smear in plain sight in the victim's car, and think leavening it right near the entrance of the property hidden by a few sticks and then go on vacation would be a good idea

S.A. Did not have a cut finger on the 31st Oct 2005 or the 1st 2nd 3rd of Nov 2005, not that you care anyway's.

[QUOTE=lkasigh;50693695][QUOTE=golfnutt;50692311] Unusual. Leaving one tooth, one key, one bullet, and one car with one accomplice.

2015-2016 add-ons, rule 1.1-**** Camera phone, 1.2-P.D. Harassing Said owner of camera footage for a few years.

2. Is wrong tbh, No cop ever has said that period. OK maybe 1-2.

Welcome to the thread btw & keep fighting the good fight.

M.G......Q: From your unique perspective as a local prosecutor, knowledge of both the '85 and '05 Avery cases, as well as serving on Innocence Projects, what are some of the more practical bits of information that laypeople throughout the world may not be aware of, that serve to speak to Avery's guilt, or may serve to dispel some of the misconceptions that lead people to conclude he was framed in 2005?

A: Colborn and Lenk had nothing to do with Avery’s wrongful conviction in 1985. They played no role in the investigation or his conviction. In fact, I don’t believe Colborn even worked here at the time. In addition, the county had insurance to cover an award of several million dollars to Avery in his wrongful conviction lawsuit, which is where the case was likely to end up – not the thirty six million dollars he was seeking.

#protect & serve #Not biased #politicians lol #ambulance chasers ftw


#

Det. Andrew Colborn is speaking out on the defense attorney’s claims that the investigator seized victim Teresa Halbach’s car on Nov. 3, 2005 — two days before it was officially “found.”

“[Zellner’s claims] are as ludicrous as anything else she’s come up with, and beyond that,” Det. Colborn “The war against law enforcement continues and I’m not surprised at all.”

He's 100% right. Colburn called in a plate number. Defense seized on it as "proof" he was looking at the car. Jury sees through it as obvious grasping at straws. Millions of critically-thinking challenged TV viewers agree it proves something.