I think oski has already done the heavy lifting with respect to how lawsuits work.

It is very odd they'd seize a burn barrel then send it to the salvage yard, then seize it a second time.

Another pebble on the mountain of evidence there's something hinky about how this case was investigated.

I'll explain why I'm right!

The main thing to look at is Wisconsin's statute on indemnification of county employees - 859.46(1)

(a) If the defendant in any action or special proceeding is a public officer or employee and is proceeded against in an official capacity or is proceeded against as an individual because of acts committed while carrying out duties as an officer or employee and the jury or the court finds that the defendant was acting within the scope of employment, the judgment as to damages and costs entered against the officer or employee, except as provided in s. 146.89 (4), in excess of any insurance applicable to the officer or employee shall be paid by the state or political subdivision of which the defendant is an officer or employee.


If you'd like me to go into further detail about why any court would find that the individual defendants were acting within the scope of employment, I'd be happy to do so later.

But I don't really think that's necessary, considering every party involved agreed that both of the individual defendants were acting within the scope of employment!


STEVEN AVERY'S COMPLAINT


http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...-Complaint.pdf


Of course Steven Avery's lawyers were going to be arguing that the individual defendants were acting within the scope of employment. It was part of their goal for the county to indemnify the defendants. If the defendants are the ones liable for the judgment/settlement, there's not going to be millions of dollars to be won - the individual defendants would file for bankruptcy and everyone loses except the county.



MANITOWOC COUNTY & VOGEL'S RESPONSE


http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...nt-Vogel-1.pdf



MANITOWOC COUNTY & KOCOUREK'S RESPONSE


http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...t-Kocourek.pdf


Notice that the individual defendants' responses to Avery's complaint were made by both Manitowoc County and the individual defendants.


Now, is it possible that the jury or the court finds that the defendant was acting outside of the scope of employment? Sure, but it'd be pretty weird, considering all sides are arguing that they were acting within the scope of employment!

Now, is it possible that some huge bombshell was going to be uncovered that changed the county's stance in the future? Sure. But of course, this imaginary bombshell never occurred and the county's stance never did change.

But pretending this imaginary bombshell did exist, is it possible that Kocourek and/or Vogel were scared of buckling under the pressure of their depositions, so they killed an innocent young woman and framed an innocent man in one of the most elaborate conspiracies ever and have kept it all secret for a decade already? Sure, but I think it would have been a lot easier to just stick to the script during their depositions.

Poorskillz doesn't understand.

Where insurance may be involved, the first pleading (Complaint) is framed as broadly as possible to hook the insurance in the case.

So, if there is an intentional tort, which would be outside the scope of employment (and thus insurance) negligence is pleaded.

Once the case progresses, the Complaint is amended to bring charges against the individuals.

The whole point is to hook the insurance, and then later ramp up the pressure by expanding the scope of the case - at that point, the case is on much better settlement grounds from the Plaintiff.

Happens in every case where insurance is involved.

^^^

Of course, given how things are done in ol' Mon Co. I guess one can argue that depriving people of civil rights is within the course and scope of emplyoment.

Who made that decision for the coroner not to have any access?

How does the decision-maker reconcile the fact that sheriff's department personnel were allowed to actively investigate the premises but the coroner was refused permission?

Would it be ok for the coroner to testify, like she wanted, that she felt she was deliberately being left out of the investigation. And she couldn't believe she had to hear about the bones being discovered and there was a coroner from another county on site from watching tv. She was not consulted or given any notice.

And shouldn't the decision-maker have to at least explain his decision process to the jury.

The jury can process and reconcile all the information. Together as a group.

Thanks for the responses. Do you think this will be brought up by KZ at all wrt motive?

I have no idea.

At this point, there are only questions. I believe the investigation fell short in a number of areas, so it is not like, "it is not 'x', so it must be 'y'." It is more like, "there are a lot of questions about this being 'x', which leads us to a number of other questions about a number of other people."

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case...2.89-1537.html






http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1595766.html




This is all besides the point though, as it was in Avery's best interests to argue they were acting within scope of employment in order for them to be indemnified, otherwise they would never see most of the money the money they would potentially be awarded.

I know Oski claims to be a lawyer, and he obviously has more overall legal knowledge than I do, but I firmly believe he has no clue what he's talking about in regards to this case. Pretty much every other legal opinion I've seen on this matter has stated that the individual defendants would almost certainly be indemnified.

I get the impression Zellner's focus will be on whether there is evidence of Steven's innocence, whether there is evidence police tampering with evidence, and whether there is evidence for a more likely perpetrator.

It seems to me that trying to establish 'motive' is something which will have less significance for the court than the actions of the persons involved.

What are the purposes of depositions?

There are nuances that are being discovered continuously by both parties. It is very much like poker where scores of verbal and non-verbal information are being accumulated. Both parties not only have their own drop-dead zone of what they would be willing to accept/pay, but ascertaining their own belief what the other side would accept/pay.

It is really complex. They take into account the cost of a trial and the uncertainty involved vs. resolution immediately. As well as signaling to future complaints that "xyz" will settle.

I have been on both sides of parties and always have my own idea where things are going to settle. And even though I may be right, there is also the 'dance' involved that lawyers have to play to earn their share. They often get paid per hour, so cases being resolved immediately are contradictory to their economic interests.

Signs you are dealing with a Shill (as per smacc25's post):

1) They post A LOT (thereby allowing readers to get a good feel for the depth of their knowledge)
(2) Based on the extent of their posts, it is evidently clear that they are attorneys or former attorneys (or perhaps Law Enforcement or have other connections and/or interests in the case).
(3) Based on the extent of their posts, they show an uncanny fluency of the trial records and all of their intricacies, beyond what one would expect from a typical internet sleuth (let alone one with a demanding full time job).

Signs you are dealing with a Shill (as per smacc25's post):

1) They post A LOT (thereby allowing readers to get a good feel for the depth of their knowledge)
(2) Based on the extent of their posts, it is evidently clear that they are attorneys or former attorneys (or perhaps Law Enforcement or have other connections and/or interests in the case).
(3) Based on the extent of their posts, they show an uncanny fluency of the trial records and all of their intricacies, beyond what one would expect from a typical internet sleuth (let alone one with a demanding full time job).

Signs you are dealing with a Shill (as per smacc25's post):

1) They post A LOT (thereby allowing readers to get a good feel for the depth of their knowledge)
(2) Based on the extent of their posts, it is evidently clear that they are attorneys or former attorneys (or perhaps Law Enforcement or have other connections and/or interests in the case).
(3) Based on the extent of their posts, they show an uncanny fluency of the trial records and all of their intricacies, beyond what one would expect from a typical internet sleuth (let alone one with a demanding full time job).

Personally, I don't care if an attorney posts a lot and shows an uncanny fluency of the trial records. How are these bad things?

Standard. Cherry picks one sentence from the post, uses it and it alone to minimize the significance of the entire situation.

I guess that, personally, you don't care that SA and BD are in jail. A jury found them guilty of murder. Amirite?

Also Shillz is not an attorney. Oski IS an attorney, but clearly has other job obligations and does not have time to develop an uncanny fluency of the trial records.

It seems to me that shilling for LE might be somewhat of an occupation for PoorSkillz. Whether his profiting off of book sales or otherwise being compensated for the shear volume of work he puts into this forum (and no other forum since 2014). He has everyone with any type of stance leaning towards innocent on ignore. He only responds to new-ish posters who seem uninformed by leaving them a bunch of links to the shill site or quoting the book.

shill: an accomplice of a confidence trickster or swindler who poses as a genuine customer to entice or encourage others.

I did not care that poorskillz posted ITT & even argued( I think) that he should not be banned from here when a mod popped into the thread to ask(somewhat) if he & another should be removed.
I just wanted to see how these shills worked irl tbh & its funny that OSKI was the 1st to be put on ignore by him but when oski posts itt he responds st8 away( almost ) every ****ing time.
As for revots well he's just gonna revots.

Buting/Strang. quote: "For purposes of facilitating the relief allowed in paragraph 4 above and without further order of a judge or court, the State shall transfer without delay to laboratory or scientist designated by the defense any or all of the materials described ..." I hope Zellner tells them UP YOURS!

Lets see what stalling tactic's they are doing, more civil rights violations maybe?
Hand that evidence over T.F. asap & don't say you lost a phone or car keys lol.

In general those 3 things aren't bad and don't make someone a shill.

Cherry picking? I addressed your method for identifying someone as a shill. I'm not arguing aether PS is a shill or not I'm tell you that your criteria is bad.

I'm sure you wouldn't call an attorney who posts a lot and is fluent in the trial transcripts who happened to think SA is innocent a shill.....AMIRITE?

What does that mean? I have a difference of opinion from you, which I'm pretty sure is allowed. I think Avery is guilty and I'm glad he is in jail. I don't think the police planted evidence or framed him.

I've been respectful to other posters as has poorskillz. Meanwhile I've been called "revots the ******" and a bunch of other things simply for not holding the majority view. Clearly the guy who called me that should be banned, but honestly I could care less so I don't bother reporting stuff like that. Like I said, my guess is there are a lot of teenagers on this board.

Given Kratz's creepy behavior, you have to wonder if they'll recover the seven pairs of panties seized from Teresa's laundry hamper and whose DNA might be on them.

Just joking around revots33, we cool?

Not once that I can remember have I called you a rude name, a few gifs OK sure. When I took the hump you said to me to stay around so thx for that.

Ummmm, yes I would, just like I would call a spade a spade. Especially if that attorney came into the forum under the guise of being a forum member that had no interest in the case, monetarily, professionally or otherwise.

There's no reason to be posting in the kind of manner and with the kind of frequency that PoorShillz is posting unless he is a shill. And the criteria as laid out very clearly above is a good method to use to spot a shill.

What you are not understanding is the definition of shill.

It's hilarious that people ITT have genuinely believed (and often fervently argued) that I'm a shill, a Wisconsite, a police officer, a lawyer, Michael Griesbach, a girl, a ******, etc.

They have been wrong on all accounts.

Of course the people applying these labels are wrong about much more as well.

Cool Story Bro.