Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Making a Murderer Making a Murderer

01-24-2016 , 10:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
Because what would happen if the cops had their DNA on it?
If the intent of the police was to plant the key, I think they would be extra careful handling it.
01-24-2016 , 10:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Nope, please don't put words in my mouth again.
I'm not putting words into your mouth.

Feel free to state your opinion.
01-24-2016 , 11:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
I'm not putting words into your mouth.

Feel free to state your opinion.
Pick the worst posts you find on reddit and you should know his opinion, no need to ask him for that
01-24-2016 , 11:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimplyRavishing Making a Murderer
Perhaps he was concerned about it being an illegal search. Meaning, if it's found that the search is illegal, then it can't be used as evidence.
I don't want to look up the law. I'm pretty sure that if the Brother and Ex-BF go onto the Avery property illegally, and find the car, then turn that information over to the police, the police are well within their rights to use that information.

The police, and agents of the police, are not allowed to conduct illegal searches. So long as the brother and ex are not specifically working on behalf of the police, things would be fine.

At worst the brother and ex would be looking at a trespassing charge, but it's a scrap yard, they could have just shown up in broad day light and been like "can I walk around your yard?". Every scrap yard I've ever been to has allowed that.

I'm not a lawyer.
01-24-2016 , 11:11 AM
They could still be concerned about it being an illegal search even if it wasn't. Post is irrelevant.
01-24-2016 , 11:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
Pick the worst posts you find on reddit and you should know his opinion, no need to ask him for that
The worst posts on reddit are better than the best ones on here
01-24-2016 , 11:30 AM
I think the Colburn license plate drama was overplayed. It is certainly possible that they got her license plate from a family member, and he was simply calling in to verify the number was correct and that the car was in fact registered to Teresa Halbach.

It seemed a little shady, but certainly was not proof he was staring at the car days before it was "found".

Also regarding the DNA on the key... I can't remember exactly but I could swear I heard one of Avery's attorneys say something about how the state said there was other dna on the key and that it COULD have been Teresa's, but they couldn't definitively determine. Something like that. The gist was that the state had presented some explanation for the key only having SA's DNA, which wasn't really shown in the documentary.
01-24-2016 , 11:43 AM
Poorskillz has a learning disability at the very least.
01-24-2016 , 11:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngerPush Making a Murderer
They could still be concerned about it being an illegal search even if it wasn't. Post is irrelevant.

I hope by they, you mean the brother and ex and not the police.
01-24-2016 , 12:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andro Making a Murderer
.

Then there is of course the testimony from Bobby and Scott Tadych. They both seem pretty inconsistent in their stories and their testimony is kind of a mess.
... and for each of them on what should have been very simple points given (according to their alibis) very limited exposure to the situation.
01-24-2016 , 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimplyRavishing Making a Murderer
Perhaps he was concerned about it being an illegal search. Meaning, if it's found that the search is illegal, then it can't be used as evidence.
If the car was found by civilians trespassing, it would not be an issue for the police.

the rule applies to a police search.
01-24-2016 , 12:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
I
I'm not a lawyer.
and yet, you provided a perfect answer.
01-24-2016 , 12:24 PM
SA wasn't framed in 1985. Quit telling that lie. The innocence project did an investigation and already determined this. The cause for his wrongful conviction was a witness misidentification.
01-24-2016 , 12:26 PM
Lol. The cops directed that mis-identification and used a photo of SA for the sketch artist.
01-24-2016 , 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet Making a Murderer
Lol. The cops directed that mis-identification and used a photo of SA for the sketch artist.
Says you, that is in dispute. You do realize the only reason that is thought to be the case is because the sketch of avery looks similar to his mug shot? Could this sketch also not look similar to the witnesses description of him since he looked a lot like the actual rapist?
01-24-2016 , 12:28 PM
I'm sure this has been mentioned somewhere but Scott Taydech, the guy who owned the burn barrel, has a history of stalking, assaulting, threatening women, and having restraining orders against him.
01-24-2016 , 12:28 PM
Go call the innocence project anyway. Their job is to find police misconduct and framing by the police.. Unfortunately, they didn't. But you did? ya ok.
01-24-2016 , 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
SA wasn't framed in 1985. Quit telling that lie. The innocence project did an investigation and already determined this. The cause for his wrongful conviction was a witness misidentification.

I think the police decided he was guilty before investigating, then suffered from a lot of confirmation bias.

The police decided to ignore his air tight alibi. Their DNA evidence expert was terrible and linked a hair to him, which we know wasn't the case.

The innocence project doesn't want/need a defamation lawsuit, so they aren't going defame any member of the police force needlessly.
01-24-2016 , 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngerPush Making a Murderer
They could still be concerned about it being an illegal search even if it wasn't. Post is irrelevant.
well, if the police in question are total idiots, perhaps.

anyhow, the question was raised in response to the reddit theory going around. Colborn ' s motivation was inferred from those facts and it was subsequently pointed out that the ex bf and brother finding the car should not have been a concern.

Under those facts the police would have no legal issues with illegal search.

So, the post is not "irrelevant" as a police officer without an agenda and with competence would have simply logged whatever report fielded on the car and proceeded to the property. at the very least, we know that did not happen.
01-24-2016 , 12:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Says you, that is in dispute. You do realize the only reason that is thought to be the case is because the sketch of avery looks similar to his mug shot? Could this sketch also not look similar to the witnesses description of him since he looked a lot like the actual rapist?
The sketch looks exactly like the photo. It's obviously just about impossible for you to imagine the police doing anything wrong.
01-24-2016 , 12:35 PM
Its a picture of a man with a beard for ffs. Of course it looks like the photo because the photo is of a man with a beard. Also, as a side note.. Lenk was the one that found all this evidence you guys think is in dispute and Lenk wasn't even employed by mantiwoc county in 1985.. The only reason he was deposed for the civil suit was because he testified to telling Colhborn to fill out a report in 2003 for the call Colhborn took in 1995.. So there was no involvement by Lenk that was anything suspect in the rape case. He didn't even know about the phone call until 2003
01-24-2016 , 12:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
The worst posts on reddit are better than the best ones on here
Maybe then you should post exclusively over there.
01-24-2016 , 12:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
I think the police decided he was guilty before investigating, then suffered from a lot of confirmation bias.

The police decided to ignore his air tight alibi. Their DNA evidence expert was terrible and linked a hair to him, which we know wasn't the case.

The innocence project doesn't want/need a defamation lawsuit, so they aren't going defame any member of the police force needlessly.
I agree with most of what you said. There probably was some confirmation bias. Police thought they had their man and determined they could prove this in court.

I do not agree that the innocence project wouldn't want to defame police for a case like this. If there was as much meat on the framing bone as you guys think there is the innocence project would have found it. It is their ultimate goal.
01-24-2016 , 12:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
I think the Colburn license plate drama was overplayed. It is certainly possible that they got her license plate from a family member, and he was simply calling in to verify the number was correct and that the car was in fact registered to Teresa Halbach.

It seemed a little shady, but certainly was not proof he was staring at the car days before it was "found".
.
The problem with this is that if something as innocent and simple as this happened, why didn't Colborn simply state it on the stand? Why are there no records of a family member phoning in this information?

Instead, we see Colborn fumbling around on the stand and the brother and ex bf's nervous and unsure statements at the interview.
01-24-2016 , 12:41 PM
Who said SA was framed? He was clearly pegged by the cops and they didn't do dudiligence, additionally, Steven Avery was planted in the witnesses mind by people working in the office. The cops ignored additional suspects including one that made a ton of sense. Additionally, the sheriff didn't push the new evidence when colburn was called in 1995 or whatever when the sheriff claimed they had their man. It's also funny that they filled out said report a day after SA was released.

      
m