No. But the police should do their best to "keep watch".

Scott Peterson who was convicted of murdering his 8-month pregnant wife.

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

This is police and investigative work and prosecution that makes one have faith in the system.

Scott Peterson was part of the search team and was supported by his missing wife's family. Police started to get suspicious when his stories were not accurate. They waited months to arrest him but kept him under close guard.

After the arrest:
-Moved trial because of publicity
-Prosecution said they had no real idea of what day she was murdered or how.
-They brought up what they believed may have been his motive. But didn't state it as fact.
-They allowed the defense to use whatever theories they wanted. The defense said a Satantic cult in the area kidnapped her. Go right ahead.
-Presented it to a jury
-Guilty verdict with death penalty

Little doubt to his guilt. Which is seemingly contradictory that they were so open they had no idea really what happened or when. They left it up to a jury to decide.

Bravo.

No it isn't normal, no one thinks its normal. Got anymore brain busters.

Well since they asked if anyone had SA in custody hours after she was missing it seems like they had some idea of a crime

Tbf every L.E. official in 2 county's was on that crime scene apart from one person, can you guess who that person was for bonus point?

It's kind of mean, I know.

But sometimes the only way to prevent the coincitards from having the last word is to speak up when they spout nonsense.

That was after the Rav4 was found...

I've given you quite a long leash, but it's clearly time to stop discussing with you. You're not knowledgeable about the case and have shown no interest in learning since your first few posts.

Everytime I explain to you why you're wrong about something regarding this case, you just counter with even more misinformed, untrue bull**** (along with some occasional insults); quite frankly, this is a boring discussion for me to take part in, and you seem incapable of having any kind of discussion beyond this at the moment. Let me know if this changes in the future.

LOL, the Guilter's ITT clearly have 90% of the people ITT on ignore. I wonder why that is? Clearly the intention is not to participate in the discussion about MaM. It's to sell books or some other weird sh*t imo.

Strang: We get Sergeant Andrew Colborn.

Strang: And he's told, Look, two places we'd like to sort of check out and see if Teresa Halbach showed up on Monday: the Zipperer residence... and Steven Avery.

Strang: Well, that's a name that rings a bell. You better believe.

Strang: Less than three weeks, or about three weeks after his deposition.

Strang: And it is interesting that of those two places that Sergeant Colborn is asked to check out and inquire after Teresa Halbach... he only goes to one. Goes to Steven Avery's home.

Strang: Out of the blue, the same night, Lieutenant James Lenk calls Calumet about this missing person report.

Strang: Let's be clear. It's in another county.

Strang: It's not even Manitowoc County at all.

Strang: And nobody has called for Lieutenant Lenk.

Strang: Nobody's called looking for him.

Strang: But the Chief Detective of Manitowoc County takes it upon himself that night to call Calumet and offer to get involved in the missing person investigation where one of the appointments that was to be kept was Steven Avery.

Strang: November five, Saturday, Pam and Nikole Sturm find the Toyota they suspect, correctly as it turns out, is Teresa's.

Strang: And folks, from that point forward, before the police say they've even opened the car, before they say they know of any blood of any sort, in or on the car, before anybody even knows whether this young woman has been hurt or killed... the focus is on Steven Avery.

Strang:Hear it yourself.

Strang: When Detective Jacobs was calling after the police have arrived at the Avery property, after Teresa's car has been found there.

[recording of phone line ringing]

woman: Good morning, Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department. Katie speaking.

Jacobs: Katie, just rolled into the parking lot.

Jacobs: Can you tell me, do we have a body or anything yet?

Katie: I don't believe so.

Jacobs: Do we have Steven Avery in custody, though?

Katie: I have no idea.

Strang: This is 30 minutes after they found the car.

Strang: Indeed, they wouldn't find the first bone fragment for three days.

I can see why PoorSkillz has a lot of people in this thread on ignore.

Afraid he might learn something.

To be fair to Shillz, what he responded to that quote was truthful.

It wasn't hours after she was reported missing that they said that, it was minutes after they found her car.

I'm not saying that makes anything better, just that his last post with regards to when the "is SA in custody call" was made was/is accurate

Yeah it makes a pretty huge difference if they are asking about having Avery in custody as soon as she is reported missing, vs. after they find the missing woman's car half-hidden on Avery's property.

As usual you guys state something that is 100% factually incorrect, and once you are proven to be wrong, just counter that it didn't matter anyway.

Pretty clear I'm on revots33 ignore list as well. The clear, clear point from the exact trial transcript I posted is that STEVEN Avery was immediately considered a suspect of some crime before they even opened the car. They had no idea if Teresa was alive, dead, hiding, on vacation, etc (well it's actually fairly clear to see that the DID have some idea of her fate).

Additionally, there are like 5 or 6 OTHER Averys that live on or near that yard as well as Dasseys and other people in general. Why is STEVEN Avery specifically immediately targeted as someone that should be in custody? Questioned? Okay, sure. Under arrest? Absolutely not.

Now it's "before they opened the car" is it.

Yes there are other Averys on the lot but she was there doing business with only 1 of them...

Unless doing business is now a crime in Manitowoc, then the obvious point that you seem to be agreeing with is that Steven Avery and Steven Avery alone was considered a suspect to a crime "before" they knew a crime was committed...because you know

yeah that's the point I'm trying to make...

You would have to be a blithering idiot to think no crime had been committed when the car was found in the state it was in.

Just because someone 'thinks' a crime has been committed isn't really cause to go and arrest anybody.

Some interesting points in the Documentary that I didn't notice before but have since gained much more relevance due to the Rav-4 Nov. 3rd logging discrepancy:

There is a police report of Mike Osmundson (a friend of Bobby Dassey) stating that on Nov. 10th, Steven Avery was asked jokingly by Mike if Steven had Teresa in his closet to which Steven jokingly replied by asking if he (Mike) wanted to help him get rid of the body.

Now on the stand, Bobby Dassey under oath either lies or is beguiled by Kenny Kratz carefully worded and dated question:

KK: Now, Bobby, on the 3rd of November, a Thursday, I believe it is, do you recall having a conversation with your Uncle Steven regarding a body?

BoD: Yes.

KK: Could you tell us what your Uncle Steven told you that day?

BoD: Well, my buddy Mike was over too and he asked us...

BoD: It sounded like he was joking, honestly.

BoD: But he asked us if we wanted...

BoD: He wanted us to help him get rid of the body.

So here we have a verified piece of evidence in a police report dated 10 November showing Mike Osmundson joking with SA where SA references hiding the body.

Somehow KK, is allowed to ask Bobby Dassey who is under oath a question that KRATZ has just dated as Nov. 3rd.

As Dean Strang puts it:

Later, in Kenny Kratz Q&A with reporters

Reporter: Where'd you get the date November 3rd?

Kenny Kratz: I can't clarify that. The testimony from Bobby Dassey today, that's the in-court evidence.

Kenny Kratz: He, uh, identified that conversation as happening on the 3rd.

Reporter: No, you identified it. You said On November 3rd, I believe it was a Thursday, do you recall a conversation with Steven Avery about a body?

Kenny Kratz: All right.

Reporter: So you established it as November 3rd and I'm wondering where...

Reporter: Did that come from a report we don't know about?

Kenny Kratz: That came from preparation of, uh, Bobby Dassey.

Kenny Kratz: I talk to my witnesses before I call...

Reporter: The police reports, were they strictly from this Mike's statements to police or did Bobby Dassey actually tell...

Reporter: 'Cause it sounded like in court that Bobby Dassey never mentioned this conversation or these jokes with investigators, that was only Mike that mentioned them.

Kenny Kratz: I understand that you're all very excited about this one piece.

Kenny Kratz: Please don't forget the real reason that Bobby testified today.

Kenny Kratz: Establishing the timeline and establishing that Teresa Halbach walked towards Mr. Avery's house before she was murdered.

Reporter: Why didn't you put Mike on the witness list and call him?

Reporter: Instead of avoid... So that you could have avoided this entire issue?

Kenny Kratz: I didn't think this was an issue.

Kenny Kratz: I get to call my witnesses that I think is gonna prove the State's case.

Exactly. We all know what happens in Manitowoc when crimes and perps are confirmed and independently verified after "thinking about it".

Is it just lawyer speak to say "November 3" or "November 5" instead of 3rd or 5th, that always irked me

When did I say it was?

You don't have to try and defend lostinwhateverhisnameis. I don't hold it against the rest of you that he is on your team. He's a legit nutcase A hole.

It's hilarious that you use the term team.

Generally speaking, luckproof has been fairly rational and reasonable in the thread (as opposed to one or two others).

Does anybody know WI law well enough that if BD never confessed then the state could not have used the Denny ruling?

You said:

Because I said:

So clearly, your inference that "You would have to be a blithering idiot to think no crime had been committed" was meant to show that LE did in fact have cause to arrest SA because they "thought" a crime had been committed. Or have we got this wrong too?

Agreed, but has also added nothing to the thread that is off any importance either way, but he does love JAQ,ing off.