Also, $36million>400k.

If you think the insurance company was just going to snap pay off the $36 million without conducting their own investigation, then I'd like to purchase some insurance from you.

You going to be needing that poorskillz dictionary too it seems.

Do you think I'm a criminal case where it is known the police planted evidence a person should be sent to standard?

I am guessing yes, so my follow up is why do you have such incredibly low standards for the police. You expect even less than mediocre competency from them.

Nah, that happened around post 300. The rest has just been noise.

Fraley's idea of motive is that their grandma is going to be thrown into a pit of acid if they don't plant the evidence.

I think we all agree that markman, richgangi, and that other guy believe they understand what reasonable doubt means better than the judge in Avery's trial.

I think we also all agree that the justice system isn't perfect and some cops are corrupt. Some people just want to see actual evidence before they believe it happened in this case.

More importantly -where was the opportunity? Under the facts of that case planting was almost certainly impossible, especially for Fuhrman.

http://static1.squarespace.com/stati...m+letter+2.pdf

http://static1.squarespace.com/stati..._multidocs.pdf

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/speculation

Motive: I agree this is fuzziest. I can think of three motives.

1. Worried that he would be banned in the lawsuit (he has admitted that this was a concern of his regardless of how small you say his involvement was)

2. To help put a guilty man in jail. Cops do this frequently.

3. Protect his brother officers who were named in the lawsuit. (The thin blue line is a real thing and cops will do nearly anything to protect one another)

Take your pick.

He didn't have means? Did he have access to the blood and access to the car? Yes, yes he did.

And opportunity? It's likely he was on the scene of the Rav 4 for hours before it turned into a total zoo.

I agree that the dictionary definition of speculation means baseless speculation, but baseless speculation is a phrase because the word on its own has taken on a different meaning.

If you are asking if a person should be sent to prison if there is proof some evidence was planted, i'd say it depends on the strength of other evidence. But in general, no. I think that if it can be demonstrated evidence was planted most of the evidence provided should be viewed as tainted. Unless there is something like several eye witnesses who saw the crime or something like that.

I don't have low standards for police. That is a begging the question fallacy.

1. Lenk didn't say this. You are thinking of colborn, but even colborns involvement was minimal and I do not think there is any real reason he would be named.

2. Well, you can always argue that motive. So we should just always have reasonable doubt because that will always be a possibility. Do you think it is reasonable to take this line?

3. Which brother do you think they were protecting? there were only 2 people named in the lawsuit and both were retired and only 1 was a cop.




The blood in TH rav 4 was consistent with the blood in the grand prix. The blood splatter expert testified to this. It is not reasonable based on testimony from experts that the blood from his grand prix and the blood in the rav 4 didn't come from the same place.

When they say that reasonable doubt is not supposed to be based on speculation, this is exactly what they mean. Reaching conclusions that defy common sense and conclusions that do not have any evidence to support them.

This is actually true though. Means and motive are not enough to ignore all the evidence and saying there was a police conspiracy to frame SA based only on means and motive is not nearly enough.

Look, all police probably have means to plant evidence. They are usually the first to a crime scene and they are the ones investigating. So clearly they have means that regular citizens do not.

They also almost always have motive, at least if they think the suspect is guilty, as they may not want to see someone who they think is guilty, go free.

But there still needs to be some actual proof. The amount of evidence here was overwhelming which makes the odds of planting it all less. The number of people involved (FBI, crime lab, Calumet officers, etc.) makes it more difficult.

The idea that a pending lawsuit proves anything is silly. Positing that they "saw their chance" to get the guy who was suing them is nothing but unfounded speculation, without any evidence to support it. Which there is none.

No, it isn't. They mean that the jurors should not unreasonably jump to their own conclusions. They shouldn't be like "well, that guy is a ginger, so he probably did it". Or "****ing cops, they're all pigs, clearly they planted evidence". Those things would be unreasonable.

If the judge thought the defense's line of questioning/suggesting that evidence was planted was unreasonable/unfounded, he wouldn't have allowed it in court. He did. Therefore the jury is allowed to weigh that into their decision making.

I know all of this is very hard for you to understand. Try being reasonable about it.

Ginger = no soul. I don't see what would be unreasonnable.

Look, I know it's hard for you to understand that LE officers could do wrong, but stay with me for a second.

There's a reason every defendant/defense attorney doesn't present a defense that the police planted evidence.

SA and his lawyers didn't pull this defense out of thin air. There's a reason the judge allowed, and continued to allow despite constant objections from KK, this defense to be presented.

1. Oops thanks for the clarification
2. I agree this motive always exists. It alone is not enough to have reasonable doubt, but when combined with a cloud hanging over all the key evidence and all the other procedural issues and mistakes starts to paint a different picture
3. Cops and prosecutors back eachother up too. Just because they're retired doesn't mean they're out of the brotherhood. (My stepdad has been retired for 20 years and he still gets special treatment in all kinds of scenarios). Could even be as simple as protecting the reputation of the department or making sure it stays funded.

Blackize,

It seems that if you believe what you are saying then it seems like you think SA should never be found guilty without a confession or reliable eye witness testimony?


It seems like you are saying SA can never be on trial in manitiwoc county without a cloud over all evidence.

Wont have time to read until later.

Lol might want to read the first pages of the first link there Fraley.

Hahahahahaha

The reason is people who have an overwhelming amount of physical evidence proving their guilt don't usually give a couple hundred thousand dollars to defense attorneys and refuse to plead guilty.

What other choice did the defense attorneys have?

Hahahahhahaha.

You realize that if MC had actually done what they said they were going to do, that being recuse themselves, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all right? But then, we also might not have this "overwhelming amount of physical evidence" either.....

Anyone who doesn't think the framing defense is a last resort is in denial.

Lol. That department is above scrutiny. I mean, oh wait they wrongly prisoned this same guy already for 18 years. Denial is right.

What are you talking about, we just got done a few oages discussing colburns calling in of the car, ehich happened well before calumet took over.

A lot of the prevelent theories on what happened(from the pro planting side) involved police misconduct before calumet officially took over on the 11th. Obviously the key is the one big piece of evidence, but if you think SA wouldnt have also been found guilty without that then lol you.

Guarantee people would still be going on about planting and misconduct if MC did truly distance themselves once SA was being charged

Lol you. Again.