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

01-07-2016 , 09:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SGT RJ Making a Murderer
Was the cop that called about the plate an investigator, meaning their primary duties were to conduct criminal investigations as opposed to patrol (I was never an investigator, I was a patrol officer, so I was never primarily involved with in depth investigations like a missing person report)? If yes, then I'm not sure why he'd need to call dispatch to get DMV records, anyone with primary investigative duties should have access to that on their computer. If no, then what other reason could he have to call it in? If given a missing persons report at start of shift, it already includes the plate and vehicle info.

Him knowing the year/model before it being told to him is just WTF, it makes no sense unless he's looking at the car, or something from the car with the info on it, but if he had that (like a DMV printout) why would he need to call dispatch.

I could have mixed up phone vs. radio contact.
Hi SGT RJ. It was colborn that called in the plates.
But 1 Q I have for you is this, why is a officer of that rank doing patrol work?
And then calling-in by using his phone, I wonder if this phone was police issue or his personal phone.
01-07-2016 , 09:54 PM
So was the murder of TH just an accident by either scott,bobby or steven's 2 brother's?
Since the cadavra dog led officers to the golf cart & the avery's were shooting rabbits on there land all the time, then they panicked & take her to the quarry to burn the body on the golf cart that the were driving at the time then say F.it were in deep now so lets just put the remains in the pit next to steven's house.
They are reports or heresay that said a co- worker was told by scott that he got blood on his jeans when the laundry got mixed in with the dassey boy's. Maybe that was why the lied on the stand against their 1st statements to Calument P.D.
I do not think this was an accident myself because the damage to TH's car is still unexplained, especially the underneath of car(maybe caused by driving the Rav4 to the avery yard) but also the damage to the front/back bumper & the front light.
01-07-2016 , 10:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Colborn's a sergeant in the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Dept. (I don't know if that means he's patrol or investigator).

Teresa was reported missing by her family around 5pm, so there probably weren't printouts at the start of the shift.

What Colborn says in the testimony is that Det. Wiegert had called him to inform him of the missing person. I think he was calling dispatch to confirm he wrote the info down correctly and make sure it matches up (which explains how he knew it was a "99 Toyota"). Would that be a plausible thing to do?




Yeah, was definitely a phone call.
Well that depends on when his shift started.

And it doesn't make really a lot of sense for him to have the plate/vehicle info and need to confirm it with dispatch. You call in the plate to get the rest of the info. If you have all the info you don't need to call in the plate. Unless he was the person who got a phone call from the family and then told him something along the lines of "well we've got this insurance card with this vehicle info" and you were the officer writing the initial missing persons report, sure, you'd confirm with dispatch. But he never claims to be operating in that capacity. Getting plate/vehicle info from within LE then confirming with dispatch, no, that wouldn't be standard at all, where the hell do you think the other LE person got the info to give you. Either from dispatch or from the same computer system dispatch is using. Usually a dispatch/DMV vehicle printout is going to be included as one of the first things pulled up in any missing persons report, and you wouldn't call dispatch every time to confirm the info on the case report. I never confirmed a BOLO with dispatch.

I guess you could conjecture if he got something from an investigator that was hand written and he wasn't 100% sure he had the right letters or numbers you could check with dispatch, assuming you didn't have computer access yourself. Why that wouldn't stick out in his memory, particularly when this was a fairly rural community with few missing persons reports, would be beyond me, especially once the vehicle was located 2 days later on the infamous Avery compound. Or he knew that his own department was ****ed up so he didn't trust anything he got without confirming it?

He couldn't remember why he already knew the year and make, only that he wasn't looking at the plate at that time (his claim). Given that this was only two days prior to when the car was found, which he surely would have known relatively soon after the find, should have stuck out when it was the same vehicle he called in so recently himself on what would have been a big deal missing persons report for a rural county.
01-07-2016 , 10:26 PM
Quote:
What Colborn says in the testimony is that Det. Wiegert had called him to inform him of the missing person. I think he was calling dispatch to confirm he wrote the info down correctly and make sure it matches up (which explains how he knew it was a "99 Toyota"). Would that be a plausible thing to do?
Yeah, I could see this being plausible. I could EASILY see him jotting this down from a phone call from Weigert he took while in the middle of something and just writing down the plates, year and make but nothing else. Then later he remembers that he wrote something down but doesn't remember the details of what it was so has to call in to dispatch so he's reminded why he wrote this down.

However, why not call Weigert back and ask him to repeat it? Perhaps Weigert is not available. Okay, fair enough.

All of this would be somewhat believable, however non of this is offered as an explanation by Colburn.

I'm not an expert by any means, but he seems like he's not being truthful on the stand. You can see physiological reactions in him when the lightbulb goes off about the significance of this revelation. All he can say is "I don't remember."

Also just think about it for a sec, he claims that Weigert called him first to give him the info. When asked if Weigert gave him the license plate number, he says he doesn't remember "but he must have otherwise he wouldn't have it." Why isn't this answer a simple "yes, sir" like all his other answers? Colburn offers up the exact date of the call before Strang has a chance to tell him the date of the call, yet he doesn't remember these simple details?
01-07-2016 , 10:27 PM
Quote:
I guess you could conjecture if he got something from an investigator that was hand written and he wasn't 100% sure he had the right letters or numbers you could check with dispatch, assuming you didn't have computer access yourself.
Yes, this is what I'm saying probably happened. According to Colborn, Wiegert called him to give him information. I'm saying Colborn probably wrote it down, then a bit later called in to make sure he wrote it down correctly. Otherwise how does he know the year of the car when the years 1997-2000 look identical?

Quote:
Why that wouldn't stick out in his memory, particularly when this was a fairly rural community with few missing persons reports, would be beyond me, especially once the vehicle was located 2 days later on the infamous Avery compound.
Why would it stick out?

His testimony was in Spring 2007 and (assuming he didn't see the plates) this is an innocuous 30 second phone call from Fall 2005.

The defense was really grasping at straws here IMO.
01-07-2016 , 10:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacc25 Making a Murderer
Hi SGT RJ. It was colborn that called in the plates.
But 1 Q I have for you is this, why is a officer of that rank doing patrol work?
And then calling-in by using his phone, I wonder if this phone was police issue or his personal phone.
Depending on the department, a sergeant could be the shift supervisor for a patrol shift. Meaning he'd be responsible for all officers/deputies on patrol at that time. Or it could just be a pay bump/prestige thing but still be a patrol officer. Depends on the department, a police sergeant can run the gamet from a patrol cop to probably some type of senior investigator.

As for the phone don't see that's a big deal either way, if it's an official phone this was official business (plate check), if personal maybe this county doesn't have work phones and he thought phone would be quicker.

You could theorize the phone is more private as well, if he really was looking at the car, he wouldn't want everyone on the radio to know he had found it if there was already some sort of conspiracy cooking.

Him doing an illegal search of the Avery lot and finding it would fit everything. Especially since you never know who is listening in on radio dispatch communications, some civilians like to monitor emergency dispatch frequencies.

I mean I'm not sold that SA is innocent - I think someone in the family did it for sure, and there's little to exclude him as the murderer, unlike his multiple alibis from his rape case, but I think the cops/prosecution in this case behaved in an unethical fashion and a conviction on BD is a travesty, and pretty damn weak on SA.

Also having a jury from that county with that pretrial coverage is laughable. That level and type of pretrial coverage at all is laughable. Judges ruling not to allow evidence that someone accessed her phone after her death is laughable. Using DNA with a negative reference test is laughable. Citing three tested swabs and concluding they yield the same results as untested swabs is laughable.

What's sad is that he actually seemed to have really good defense attorneys, but they were trying to paddle against a monsoon.

It's similar (to me) as the Serial case - even if you happened to get the guilty party, you shouldn't be allowed to convict with such aggregious problems with the police work and evidence. Our system is supposed to be predicated on a presumption of innocence, but cases like this demonstrate that's clearly not the case.
01-07-2016 , 10:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Yes, this is what I'm saying probably happened. According to Colborn, Wiegert called him to give him information. I'm saying Colborn probably wrote it down, then a bit later called in to make sure he wrote it down correctly. Otherwise how does he know the year of the car when the years 1997-2000 look identical?



Why would it stick out?

His testimony was in Spring 2007 and (assuming he didn't see the plates) this is an innocuous 30 second phone call from Fall 2005.

The defense was really grasping at straws here IMO.
It would stick out because a missing persons case like this would be an anomaly in a county like this, not an everyday occurance. If I called in a missing persons plate and that car was found 2 days later, that would stick out to me, it could have easily been the only active missing persons case in that jurisdiction, and certainly the biggest thing in LE at that time. You run a lot of plates as a patrol cop, you don't run a lot of plates that come back to missing person whose vehicle turns up two days later and leads to a massive murder investigation against someone your own department framed for rape a few decades back.

I was only ever involved in two felony cases and details of that still stick out to me 15 years later.

I make a lot of allowances for the frailty of human memory, though.

Him confirming with dispatch is still potentially non standard, though, and given the timeline I don't think the defense was wrong to point out the oddness of it. You generally don't verify already known information from another LE person. If it was from a case note (see the handwriting was terrible, I was just confirming) that should have been produced, all cops are supposed to keep their notes. But maybe everything else in this department was ****ed up too so whatever.
01-07-2016 , 10:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SGT RJ Making a Murderer
It would stick out because a missing persons case like this would be an anomaly in a county like this, not an everyday occurance. If I called in a missing persons plate and that car was found 2 days later, that would stick out to me, it could have easily been the only active missing persons case in that jurisdiction, and certainly the biggest thing in LE at that time. You run a lot of plates as a patrol cop, you don't run a lot of plates that come back to missing person whose vehicle turns up two days later and leads to a massive murder investigation against someone your own department framed for rape a few decades back.

I was only ever involved in two felony cases and details of that still stick out to me 15 years later.

I make a lot of allowances for the frailty of human memory, though.
If that was the only thing that happened, sure. But he was involved in a lot that followed this call that was way way more dramatic than calling dispatch about a missin person's car details. And looking at the guy, he also probably doesn't have as good a memory as you.


Quote:
Him confirming with dispatch is still potentially non standard, though, and given the timeline I don't think the defense was wrong to point out the oddness of it. You generally don't verify already known information from another LE person. If it was from a case note (see the handwriting was terrible, I was just confirming) that should have been produced, all cops are supposed to keep their notes. But maybe everything else in this department was ****ed up too so whatever.
Non-standard doesn't mean it doesn't happen though. Also, you haven't addressed my question of how he would know the year of the car when the years 1997-2000 look identical.
01-07-2016 , 10:58 PM
Quote:
I mean I'm not sold that SA is innocent
Noooooo!!! I thought for sure you were going to join me in the Avery's innocent party that PoorSkillz, the money burning monkey is ruining.

As far as
Quote:
I think someone in the family did it for sure
goes, Rewatch Scott Tadych's testimony. It starts at 46:30 of ep 6. One thing (that has absolutely no actual relevance but is fun to watch anyways) is that any answer he gives to Kratz that is a cursory or build up question he gives looking at Kratz, but when it comes time for the money-shot answers he turns to face the jury (this is a theme from every person on the State's side throughout the trial). Obviously, he never faces the jury once during cross examination.

Also, he is caught in a clear lie about his timeline and his answer is that he just doesn't remember (yet he CORRECTS Strang's insertion that he got home at 3:15 by stating, "no, I got home at 2:30 or quarter to 3). Strang obliterates his bad memory excuse by giving him the police report from Nov. 29th and pointing out that obviously on Nov, 29 his memory of events that he is being questioned about would have been better than they are at the present to which Scott agrees. Then he has no choice but to agree that he "must have" told the police then that he did, in fact, get home at 3:15 and the flames of the fire he saw were three feet high, (not 10 feet high as he just got done facing the jury to describe the "BIG FIRE" as being the most memorable thing he saw that night). I mean how is it that the two of most important pieces of his testimony are able to be confirmed as completely false or a flat out lie, and the third important piece can't be confirmed by anyone but Bobby Dassey?

An extremely compelling piece of evidence that those same police reports contain information that ST did in fact offer to sell a .22 caliber rifle. That in itself is not that big of a deal, but he lies about it on the stand. WHY?
01-07-2016 , 10:59 PM
It seems close to impossible that TH dna was not on her key but SA dna was. As a juror, I would probably acquit on that fact alone. Fruit from a poisonous tree and all that stuff.
01-07-2016 , 10:59 PM
Because he already knew what vehicle he was looking for, regardless of whether he was looking at the info on a piece of paper or had that paper then found the vehicle.

He clearly knew about the vehicle info prior to calling dispatch.
01-07-2016 , 11:02 PM
So then why call in to check the plates?
01-07-2016 , 11:03 PM
And if you're planning a conspiracy, why call dispatch (which will obviously be recorded)?
01-07-2016 , 11:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Non-standard doesn't mean it doesn't happen though. Also, you haven't addressed my question of how he would know the year of the car when the years 1997-2000 look identical.
Maybe that is why the bonnet is open & battery disconnected, because colborn opened the hood to get the vin.no(year) & disconnects the battery so it cannot be moved so as to wait for lenk.
01-07-2016 , 11:06 PM
I'm not sure I've gotten that far in the series yet, lost, I just already knew the outcome. Almost positive I heard some mention of this project and Googled it well before it released.

I'm not convinced he's innocent (meaning there's no evidence that excludes him that I've seen discussed so far) but from a legal standpoint I don't see sufficient evidence of guilt, either, ergo legally he's not guilty.

I mean I don't think there's much question that he technically could have done it, meaning he had the opportunity to murder her if he wanted to. It's nearly impossible to prove a negative without some sort of exclusionary evidence. But just because he could have done it doesn't mean he did it.

Last edited by SGT RJ; 01-07-2016 at 11:13 PM.
01-07-2016 , 11:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
So then why call in to check the plates?
It's possible he only had the vehicle info. Maybe the missing persons call described her vehicle but didn't have the plate info (family and friends may know your vehicle description but not your plate) and the BOLO had not yet been updated with the plate info when he found the car. But I don't have any sort of coherent narrative in mind, conspiracy or otherwise.

Honestly it was shadier when I thought it was a radio dispatch. As a phone call it makes more sense, if not perfect sense.

Also I'm kind of getting the sense that a lot of the characters in the case aren't the brightest bulbs, so maybe confirming info they already should know was just standard.
01-07-2016 , 11:16 PM
No evidence???

He was the last known person to see her alive
There's his blood in the Rav4, his DNA underneath the hood of the Rav4
Her burnt bones on his property mangled up with steel wheels and he just so happened to have a bonfire that night
There are multiple accounts of him and Brendan doing some kind of cleaning that night
The bullet with her DNA that matches up with her gun
He called her three times that day, twice from *67, but the third time after her phone was turned off without *67
01-07-2016 , 11:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SGT RJ Making a Murderer
It's possible he only had the vehicle info. Maybe the missing persons call described her vehicle but didn't have the plate info (family and friends may know your vehicle description but not your plate) and the BOLO had not yet been updated with the plate info when he found the car. But I don't have any sort of coherent narrative in mind, conspiracy or otherwise.
Haha even you realize you're starting to reach here.

And we haven't even discussed how implausibly ludicrous the scenarios would be if he was calling in the plates.

Quote:
Honestly it was shadier when I thought it was a radio dispatch. As a phone call it makes more sense, if not perfect sense.

Also I'm kind of getting the sense that a lot of the characters in the case aren't the brightest bulbs, so maybe confirming info they already should know was just standard.
Honestly, everyone finds it shady because the show is really well edited, from the scene placement to the music, etc. But when looked at objectively...
01-07-2016 , 11:36 PM
The bullet DNA should have been excluded. http://brobible.com/entertainment/ar...derer-garbage/

Even if her DNA was found (and it wasn't blood), there was no evidence presented that he fired the weapon that specific day or that he was the only one with access to it.

Her bones being found on that property points to the family, not just him.

He's the last KNOWN person to have seen her alive. There's no way to prove that with certainty. If he's the killer then it's true, if he's not then it isn't.

DNA/blood on the vehicle is suspicious. However with evidence of improper police procedures, including tampered evidence from the prior case with access to his blood and an unethical evidentiary extrapolation on the EDTA testing could lead to reasonable suspicion of tampering/improper evidence.

By all accounts bonfires were not uncommon with him or the family, and it was Halloween night.

Phone calls are suspicious but prove nothing by themselves.

Obviously she was murdered and the body burned. Someone who lived on or was intimately familiar with that compound are the most likely suspects. I'm not saying SA should not have been investigated or suspected. I'm saying with the investigatory irregularities I have not seen evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that SA specifically killed her.

Just because he could have doesn't mean he did. And I meant sufficient evidence, not no evidence. Clearly there is some evidence against him, some that is against only him (DNA) and some that could apply to others as well (body/vehicle location).

The strongest evidence against him is some of the most problematic given the blood/DNA testing irregularities.

Last edited by SGT RJ; 01-07-2016 at 11:41 PM.
01-07-2016 , 11:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Haha even you realize you're starting to reach here.

And we haven't even discussed how implausibly ludicrous the scenarios would be if he was calling in the plates.



Honestly, everyone finds it shady because the show is really well edited, from the scene placement to the music, etc. But when looked at objectively...
No looked at objectively I can't recall a single instance I ever phoned dispatch to check on a plate for info I already knew. I can just more readily imagine how that occurred than I can a radio dispatch call. So, objectively, that made me raise an eyebrow since he couldn't even recall why he'd be calling dispatch for info he clearly already knew, athough, again, I have a pretty tolerant attitude towards imperfect recollection, even of things that "should" be memorable.
01-07-2016 , 11:57 PM
i really don't think the *67 phone calls are suspicious.

she had a booking to take photos at the avery property that day.
she had told her coworkers 'yup i'm going up to the avery property later'.
she was late and he called her to check on her whereabouts.
01-08-2016 , 12:05 AM
Its suspicious unless they edited out the reasonable explanation he gave too.

You wouldn't have to remember either. If you take an action usually later you can explain why you did what you did even if you can't remember exactly what happened.
01-08-2016 , 12:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SGT RJ Making a Murderer
The bullet DNA should have been excluded. http://brobible.com/entertainment/ar...derer-garbage/
I've also seen a lab analyst weigh in that it's perfectly fine to allow the bullet, can't find the post though. Also he's drawing conclusions despite not knowing the details... He even states, "I do not know all of the work that went into developing the EDTA detection test."

Quote:
Even if her DNA was found (and it wasn't blood), there was no evidence presented that he fired the weapon that specific day or that he was the only one with access to it.
Yes, but it's his gun...(funnily enough, he's still serving his gun charge)

Quote:
Her bones being found on that property points to the family, not just him.
Yes, but who had the big bonfire until at least 11pm that night?


Quote:
He's the last KNOWN person to have seen her alive. There's no way to prove that with certainty. If he's the killer then it's true, if he's not then it isn't.
Yes, I specifically said "last known". On it's own, not much, but when combined with everything else...


Quote:
DNA/blood on the vehicle is suspicious. However with evidence of improper police procedures, including tampered evidence from the prior case with access to his blood and an unethical evidentiary extrapolation on the EDTA testing could lead to reasonable suspicion of tampering/improper evidence.
But no actual evidence the blood is planted... And no plausible scenario/motive for it to have been planted....


Quote:
By all accounts bonfires were not uncommon with him or the family, and it was Halloween night.
But when he had the bonfire that night and was cleaning with Brendan that night.....


Quote:
Phone calls are suspicious but prove nothing by themselves.
But when added to the rest...


When you add all this up together, you get a damn clear picture.
01-08-2016 , 12:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeti Making a Murderer
i really don't think the *67 phone calls are suspicious.

she had a booking to take photos at the avery property that day.
she had told her coworkers 'yup i'm going up to the avery property later'.
she was late and he called her to check on her whereabouts.
Come on, man...

I'd like to see the rest of his phone records.
01-08-2016 , 12:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
That's nice. Keep doing that.



Except in reality, where the insurers covered the settlement.

http://host.madison.com/news/local/a...bc1a374bb.html
depends on the policy.

When a claim is made, difficult cases are sent to coverage counsel who provide an opinion on the coverage. Most policies, even when coverage is in doubt still require a defense to be provided.

Here, it seems the defense was provided and the cases was proceeding under reservation of rights - with a strong indication most of the claim as pleaded would not be covered.

Where it appears a low ball settlement can be made, the plaintiff may cooperate with defense counsel to craft the settlement or amend the complaint to fall under coverage.

So, because insurance paid the 400K settlement does not provide any basis to believe it would have paid a 36 million judgment.

Given the nature of the allegations, I would believe the officers certainly had personal exposure.

      
m