Anything looks suspicious when you're determined to view something in a certain way (hence Sandy Hook, 9/11, etc. looking suspicious to so many people). Personally, I don't think finding a bullet on the first extensive search of the garage is suspicious.

Deviation from protocol was also approved.

I understand why people try to include a scientist from the Madison crime lab (along with the chief of the FBI's chemistry unit and so many other people) in their theory of a grand Manitowoc conspiracy.

I'm just not buying it. Neither did the jury.

It's the specific evidence he brought up.

Every piece of evidence appears to be rather dubious.

Somehow adding all the questionable material together is supposed to create a rock solid case.

^^ My jaw dropped when I seen the Death Certificate off T.H. The date, Detail's & signed of by a NURSE.

Only if you are looking for a conspiracy.

For ex, the victim's car found on Avery's property, with Avery's blood in it, is not "dubious". It's simply evidence that was found.

However, if you are looking for a conspiracy, suddenly the fact it was found after 30 or so minutes of looking is dubious. Or the fact that a police officer called to check on the plate# a couple of days prior is dubious. Or the fact that it wasn't hidden particularly well is dubious.

But none of those things are dubious. Unless you want to believe in a grand conspiracy. In which case you can make everything seem dubious.

Arguably one of the biggest cases ever and you would think they would go out of their way to ensure protocol was followed and utilizing top professionals. Instead of choosing hundreds of coroners available that have an MD, they choose a nurse with CME license #8. Probably had a day of training at most. And they used this document to charge SA with homicide.

All we need to do is change our theory of the justice system and then there would be problem with the verdict.

-Presumption of innocence is reserved only for the innocent
-Pre-trial press conferences are completely acceptable. Prosecution can use the media however they want in any manner.
-Anybody can waive their rights to an attorney or parent. Even if they are 5 years old.
-Investigators can make promises and lie however they see fit during interrogations.
-Even if it is proven that some evidence was planted, if there is enough real evidence to indicate guilt, no big deal. Let's not let a guilty person go free because of a rogue police officer.
-Jury verdicts are final. Let's not waste time and resources on appeals. Its over. Move on. You had chance at trial and lost.

We will get 90% of it right anyway and reduce costs significantly. Yeah, kind of sucks for the 10% that are innocent, but that is the price we will pay. Better to put 10 people in jail and 9 are certainly guilty, instead of letting 9 guilty people go to save just one innocent person. Society will be safer.

Nope.

Yeah, sure. And the Protocols of the Elders of Zion isn't dubious, either.

You don't have to be looking for a conspiracy to notice stuff like that.

You apparently really want to believe you have a rock solid case, and thus you tend to ignore significant details.

The point Revots is making is that if they had found the car after 4 hours you would have said "It's obviously suspicious that they took so long to find it." In fact you do make this argument regarding the police finding the key. So which one is suspicious - finding something after searching for a short time or taking a long time to find something?

Is there a range of times that would you consider not suspicious?

Do you have empirical data to support your position? Has anyone ever done empirical research on the length of time it takes to find evidence in cases with planting versus cases with no planting?

The amount of time to find a specific car on a large lot could range from a minute - if it happened to be the very first car they looked at - to several hours. Depending on several factors (who's looking, how distinctive the car they are looking for is, how fast the person walks, where they happen to start, how many people are looking at once, etc).

Given the range of possibilities I am not sure how a group of 2 people finding a green RAV4 in 30-40 minutes of looking at cars is such a shocking result. It isn't. Unless you are looking for conspiracies.

When she took the stand, they asked her what she was looking for on the lot that day. She didn't say "I was looking for a RAV4 specifically", she said "I was looking for any sign of TH."

It's not like she looked down each row and said "nope, no RAV4s".

Thankfully Jesus was there to guide her hand.

So yes, finding a needle in a haystack in a very quick time frame sounds weird. Also, she was the only member of the search party that day handed a digital camera by some coincidence.

Finding a key on a bookshelf after the bookshelf had been previously searched is a completely different thing altogether. It's not like they were searching a library here. It was a small 2 shelf bookshelf.

What range of times for finding the key and car would you consider to be not suspicious?

What do you base this on? Again, do you know of any empirical data on the correlation between the amount of time it takes to find a piece of evidence and the likelihood that that piece of evidence is planted?

Did I suggest that I do?

Do you know of any empirical date on the correlation between being a Jesus freak and then having Jesus lead you to finding a car?

Well, she was an ex-private investigator. Supposedly. Those are usually failed law enforcement. Instead of saying that it was random in the amount of time it took her to find it, she said that God showed her the way. Good strategy to use in a small religious town.

Regarding the sheriff finding the key, he shouldn't have been allowed in there period. So if it took one minute or one year, it doesn't matter.

The number of people in the search party is also relevant. If they were the only 2 people looking then yeah its suspicious. But if a large group split off in every direction then not so much. I can't remember how many people they had though.

Way too much emphasis on some religious woman saying God helped her do something. It's just something holy rollers tell themselves, it means absolutely nothing. Religious people think an invisible friend is guiding them... is this news to anyone?

Well, I think that was her own self-reasoning why she was she able to find the car relatively quickly. And if she believes it, that is fine.

Now one would think that Jesus would prevent SA from murdering TH, but I guess we chalk that part up to God works in mysterious ways.

It is presenting her opinion at a trial and the jury can make their own conclusion.

Personally, she seemed to show much more care for finding the car than any worry that TH may be alive in the vicinity. There was definitely a non-zero chance that she should have been alive at that point. Perhaps in the car itself.

Just 2 people (Pam and her daughter), but there were also 2 other people who had searched about an hour before them and didn't find the Rav4 (which ended up being a blessing for them, otherwise they would have been the ones being torn to shreds by conspiracy theorists a decade later).

You're saying that the length of time it took to find the car and the key are evidence that they were planted. So you're claiming that there is a correlation.

I'm just asking you what you are basing your claim on? Okay, not on empircal data, what then? Maybe Jesus guided you?

No one has said anything like your imaginary scenario. If the only thing suspicious about the RAV4 was that Sturm walked directly to it, then one could conceivably believe it was just a coincidence.

The thing you're missing about the key is that it wasn't there when the same bookcase, a very small piece of furniture, was previously emptied and searched.

No time searching for something would seem to be indicative of knowing where to look.

When a magician picks your card out of a deck with no trouble, it seems to indicate they know exactly where it is.

True she should have broken into the car immediately in case she was in there. The reason she didn't is clearly because she was with Colburn 2 days before when he killed her.

Apparently Sturm and her daughter were the only ones conducting this search - they were supplied with a map of the property (where is that map?), a camera, and a direct phone number to the sheriff.

No effort seems to have been made to find Teresa alive, even though there was no evidence she had been harmed in any way.

Great, now we have luckproof on record admitting the 'search' was suspicious.

To paraphrase you above, I used my own self reasoning to determine that it seems unlikely she would be able to find the car that quickly during her thorough search.

I used that same self reasoning to determine that it seems suspect that the key was found on a tiny bookshelf that had already been searched.

If self reasoning is good enough for Pam, it's good enough for me, no empirical data needed.

If that property was the last known place she was alive, why wouldn't the entire search team be there along with law enforcement in the first place? SA sure didn't hide it that he called her out there out for an appointment.