I've already posted an image which indicates to everyone with at least two brain cells to rub together that the 'sketch artist' obviously traced a mugshot of Steven - so there goes your theory into the toilet.

so if I just have enough faith I can plant evidence to my heart's content and it's just a simple mistake?

You're doing some serious contortions to avoid changing your position at all.

No there isn't.

People aren't bringing up the Manhattan Project. A person did. And I did that mostly in response to the other poster who keeps inserting 9/11 and I believe as well as Sandy Hook to invalidate arguments.

Police corruption does happen. Hopefully not very often.

Cover-ups do happen. And fail. Here are some more details from the U-2 spy debacle. You have the press release, changing the color of the plane, and claiming the pilot had died. I bet you the majority of Americans believed the official version of events.

***Four days after Powers (pilot) disappeared, NASA issued a very detailed press release noting that an aircraft had "gone missing" north of Turkey.[3] The press release speculated that the pilot might have fallen unconscious while the autopilot was still engaged, even falsely claiming that "the pilot reported over the emergency frequency that he was experiencing oxygen difficulties." To bolster this, a U-2 plane was quickly painted in NASA colors and shown to the media. Under the impression that the pilot had died and that the plane had been destroyed, the Americans had decided to use the NASA cover-up plan.***

It's not an intake form although for some reason people seem unwilling to acknowledge this fact. It's a summary of the entire investigation, written after Avery was charged with murder on Nov 15. It lists the facts about the case, among them the car, which has the designation "Evidence/Seized".

That is a huge difference from a form which would be used to check-in evidence as it is received at the police station.

The person was not a sketch artist. He was a sheriff. It was the only time he had every drawn a picture of a suspect. He was so thrilled with his work that he decided to "frame" a picture of it and keep it in his office...even after SA was exonerated. Seems like the police in that town have an unbelievable obsession with SA.

Yes, this is the same dirtbag who admits on the stand that DNA can be planted.

It's amazing anyone has the gall to defend these creeps in public.

The only proof of this so far has been your word. I appreciate you have a high opinion of yourself, but I don't think many here share it.

So, rather than just telling us about the summary, please link to this document or someone from the case stating it is merely a form from a summary as you say.

It's online, I assumed most itt had seen it.

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

Please provide me with a quote from someone saying they think Steven did it (and not just that they think it's still possible he did it).

Let's take it at face value that 1985 was a mistake.

How about when a detective 10 years later says it was a mistake.

And even the victim says there may have been a mistake.

Lots of mistakes. That nobody cares about taking responsibility or fixing. Or even the simple act of apologizing.

Without experience with these type of reports and how MCSD does them, we simply can't say for sure.

It could definitely be what you're saying. It could also have been entered into the system first as "missing" or "stolen" on 11/03, then updated to "evidence/seized" on 11/05 or later.

Note that it also lists "Teresa Halbach kidnapped" with an 11/03 date. This would presumably have first been entered in as "missing", then updated to "kidnapped" when the Rav4 was updated.

...or maybe they documented that they kidnapped her on 11/03 too.

Just GTFO already.

To be fair, this is exactly what we, KZ and the rest of the sane world are saying.

Surely there must have been many other items considered to be key pieces of evidence and/or seized during the investigation that would also be listed on such a form.

Why aren't they listed (not trying to be snarky, just an honest question)?

In manitowoc it s normal not to log anything properly and to log some evidences twice so you can find them more than once.

Plus we have to consider that they make mistakes, and 100% of the time the 'mistakes' favor the prosecution.

TH was first reported missing (to MCSD, and in general) on 11/03. The "Reported Date" is "11/03/05 18:34 Thursday".

On 11/03, the only two things that could be listed are TH and her Rav4.

On 11/05, they found the Rav4 with blood in it.

On 11/05, the investigation was turned over to Calumet. I believe the Rav4 was the only property found before turning the investigation over.

This is one possible explanation.

There are no contortions. My position is that Avery wasn't framed. Framing someone means creating evidence to convict someone you know or believe to be innocent. That's obviously not what happened in this case.

Yet somehow the arrest of Brendan and Steven are listed, both of which occurred after November 5th.

Planting evidence is inherently malicious.

They are perverting the cause of justice.

Just because they 'suspect' someone doesn't mean they are guilty.

If someone believes the suspect is innocent, are they justified in destroying evidence?

Fyp

No one is trying to defend anyone for the 1985 wrongful conviction. Saying it's a mistake rather than a malicious act does not excuse anyone. Professionals shouldn't make such mistakes.

But no evidence was planted. It was the days before DNA testing. The main evidence was eye-witness testimony and the eye-witness identified Avery. And he did in fact bear a strong resemblance to the actual perpetrator.

True we can't say for sure, but what we CAN say for sure is that this is NOT an evidence intake log but rather a summary of the investigation written weeks later by the detective. That's a huge distinction.

I mean it's not going to change anyone's mind anyway... but to say it is "proof" the police dept. had the car 2 days before it was found, is laughable. Even Zellner must know this, but then I guess she knows who her audience is.

I agree that it's a summary report, but we don't know when the part in question was entered.


Agreed.