Whether something is randomly 'more likely' is not the approach I am taking.

I am looking at a particular situation where some of the cops involved are publicly acknowledged to have a conflict of interest due to their department being involved in a lawsuit.

That alone introduces an element of skepticism. Logic demands it.

LOL at corpus vile saying I am willfully misinterpreting what fraleyight is saying right after fraleyight says that is pretty much what he is saying:

A "That's not what anyone is saying. They're saying it's vanishingly unlikely that it happened in this specific case. "

B "In this case it does look like fraleyight is trying to claim that it is outrageous to suggest a conspiracy is very possible and worthy of consideration. "

C "Correct, as far as I can tell it is not worthy of consideration. "

Yeah, it would have taken a lot of planning, a few evil minds, and willing cops.

I mean what motivation could they possibly have had to conspire to carry out such a scheme? If only someone had documented all the "moving parts" and the roles and motives of those involved, then maybe we'd know exactly how and why such a thing could happen.

Right mate, see this forum is about the documentary called "Making a Murderer" which documents how these 2 guys were framed by planted evidence and coerced confessions, not "caught" as you suggested then had your cronies immediately echo in subsequent posts.

You're as stupid as CV with his, "they were found guilty by a jury and sentenced by a judge, therefore, they committed the crime" nonsense.

What the fu*k is this psychobabble? You have 10 hours of video proof that the exact requirements you mention are present. Why would the killer need to return multiple times? There is no such thing as the "execution of logic" - your attempt at esoteric arguments just make you look stupid.

Would the 6 constitution violating searches by the same 2 members of LE who had recently been deposed and had admitted conflict of interest due to pending civil suit against them count as "returning to the place where he is planting evidence multiple times to plant more"?

A 10 hour documentary that begets this entire thread and is the sole reason for your shilling account showing up here shows you EXACTLY how and why the same stupid arguments you keep echoing are countered logically, legally and sensibly.

"They wouldn't be in jail if they didn't do it" is the basis of your logic. That makes you a moron.

Meanwhile, people who actually care about the Halbach's and the incredible pain they have gone through are calling for further investigation so as to bring true justice for Teresa and her loved ones. We feel there's just no way she could really rest in peace unless her real killer is caught.

"There are indeed isolated incidents of police planting evidence" Why are you using the word isolated here? Has no applicable definition and thus you just said, "There are indeed incidents of police planting evidence." Agreed. Hundreds or thousands of hours of video (edited down to 10) documenting MCLE's means, motive, and opportunity to plant evidence exist and have been seen by literally millions of people.

"We would need multiple people working independently with others to plant evidence" Hundreds or thousands of hours of video (edited down to 10) documenting multiple members of MCLE working WITH OTHERS that strongly indicate the planting of evidence have been seen by literally millions of people. How can you be working "independently" with others? No need to again throw in your shilly token words like "independently" and "isolated". They are not applicable to this sh*t show of an investigation. So you just said "We would need multiple people working with others to plant evidence". Uhhhhhhhhh....duh, hence the documentary and the ongoing fight for real justice.

"returning to the place where he is planting evidence multiple times to plant more." - you get the point (I hope).

^^ Thinks a proven to be deceptive Netflix doc is 10 hours of video proof

Please provide evidence of a frame up.
Please provide specific unequivocal examples of actual coercion via the interrogation page transcript numbers.

Thanks in advance.
*Tumbleweeds blow by*

Indeed. Certainly wasn't the lawsuit as that old chestnut was debunked yonks ago.

Yeah. Or maybe both are GAF hence the reason the evidence actually indicates guilt.

Admittedly not as probable as a hugely complex labyrinthine conspiracy involving multiple LE agencies including Federal as well Teresa's ex & Lovable Bren's brother, to go with the parallel coercion, contamination, ineffective defence counsel & jury misconduct but run with me on it for a bit...

1)Lenk and Colborns department wasn't being sued

2)Lenk and colborn weren't being sued. They were deposed to incriminate Kocurek.

3) no one said because they are in jail they are guilty. We are saying the evidence points to them being guilty and nobody else. In fact, a plausible theory of who committed the crime and how that fits all the evidence has yet to be provided.

4) yes the killer would have had to return multiple times. The killer would have had to plant the rav 4, put averys blood (freshly after he bled and before the blood coagulated) in the rav 4, her remains, move the license plate to a different location and plant teresas personal items. There is no way anyone did all that in one trip.

5) Executing logic is a very easy to understand statement.

6)I use the word "Isolation" because police planting evidence is extremely rare. Context and google may help you here.

7) You don't care about Teresa. If you did you would stop implicating people who actually grieved over her death without evidence to implicate them.

8) The netflix documentary was misleading, as has been pointed out to you.

9) There is no legal conflict of interest here and the sheriff told reporters that manitwoc would still be assisting with the investigation but wouldn't lead the investigation.

Believing everything you are told on TV by persons of questionable motive is probably not your best ever play.

At least this Avery advocate doesn't bull**** us that the show's main focus was issues in the justice system.

So many Avery advocates ignore the fact that the crux of the whole show is "Avery was framed by corrupt cops and no one cared!" and that if you take away that assumption then the investigation and trial were fair.

Yeah, a documentary about police investigation and subsequent trial has nothing to do with the justice system.



The documentary just shows what happened - if people come away from it convinced there was something hinky about the way the case was handled it could very well have to do with what happened.

The film makers didn't go into it with any such assumption of framing and as a viewer I didn't either.

False: All those involved in the lawsuit worked for Mantowoc County Sheriffs Office.

It seems you are executing your 'logic' on false premises:

Avery's civil lawyers were weighing whether to add Lenk, Sgt. Andrew Colborn or Sheriff Ken Petersen as co-defendants to their still-developing civil rights lawsuit against Manitowoc County, partly based on their videotaped depositions from mid-October 2005. Lenk was Colborn's supervisor and both men had a close professional relationship.

As has been pointed out, no alternate theory of the crime has to be provided to criticize the performance of this investigation. Look at it logically.

I tend to think that it's unlikely all the proposed manipulations of the evidence did not occur at once.

I'm fine with that. The difficulty lies in having good information to work with (see above) and then also being aware that real life situations don't always conform to formal logic because humans do not always behave logically.

I would argue that this is misrepresenting reality. It is far too common to be dismissed out of hand. Google is your friend - you can find plenty of cases of cops planting evidence and other wrongdoing in full view of other cops and no one saying a thing about it.

You don't know this. It would be smart not to bring up the victim when in the case involved in the lawsuit police were so intent on putting Steven in jail they allowed Penny Beerntsen's rapist to roam free for ten years and continue to rape, assault, and terrorize women.

Even if there are flaws in the documentary, it exposed some egregious actions on the part of police and prosecutors intent on putting Steven in prison again.

Lucky thing the cops involved in the lawsuit were there - they had a knack for coming up with evidence that police who had no conflict of interest kept missing!

Avery didn't sue the sheriffs department nor did he sue Lenk and Colborn. He sued the county for 18 million, and Kocurek and the retired DA (I forget his name) for 18 million. It doesn't matter what speculation is created to try and make it appear as if there was a case against anyone currently employed by the Manitwoc Sheriffs Department. There is no reason why either of these men would be sued.

There is not just flaws in the documentary, it is specifically intended to convince people of something by misleading them.

Logic applies in deducing truth, even if someone is being illogical. Sorry, that is just how it works. If you are going to argue we can throw away logic because we are dealing with people then there will be no foundation we can use to examine facts.

Members of manitwoc did find some of the evidence but not all. A list of things they didn't find.

Rav 4
Blood in the rav 4
Teresa's remains
The two bullet fragments (more specifically the fragment with teresas dna that came from averys gun)
License plate

Those things alone are more than enough to convict Avery.

While I am always glad to know your opinion, but it would seem that in fact both Lenk and Colburn could have been included in the suit - especially in reference to ignoring the call identifying the real rapist whose crimes Steven was punished for.

While it is always nice to know your opinion, the wrongs exposed by the documentary are many times worse than the alleged problems with the documentary.

I have never thrown away logic. But if you assume people always act logically you will be apt to make major mistakes regarding human events. And if your premises are false (as you were about where Lenk and Colburn) then all the logic in the world will not lead you to correct results.

You'll have to apply a little logic here, too: just because an innocent person finds a piece of evidence does not mean that someone else did not plant it.

In the minds of some, that is enough.

I am merely pointing out some very reasonable doubts about the case.

Lenk and Colborn were not included in the suit, neither was the sheriffs office. I mean, ffs. Lenk didn't even work for the manitwoc sheriffs department in 85, why would he be sued? As for the call..

-We don't know if it was about avery
-Colborn didn't ignore it, he passed itt to kocurek, which is what he was supposed to do
-Avery sues kocurek
-Colborn testifies to the call which shows Kocurek may not have taken the information seriously

Thats the extent of the call. Colborn didn't do anything wrong and Lenk wasn't even involved. He was only deposed because after avery was exonerated Lenk was Colborns new boss. Colborn told Lenk about it and Lenk told him to file a report.


That was not my point at all during this discussion. I simply pointed out that creating some outlandish scenario where all these people planted evidence is not necessary when the evidence can be explained with the much simpler explanation that avery killed her.



So now you are moving your goal posts. At first, you said that because manitwoc discovered all this evidence its fishy, then when its pointed out to you that manitwoc in fact, didn't discover all the evidence you resort to an argument from ignorance. You are now saying "we don't know where the evidence came from so they could have planted the evidence." That is weak sauce bro.

County was covered by insurance anyway & they had adequate reserve to either pay the rest outa their coffers or borrow on good terms.

The depositions that were underway were about discovering the extent of the problems, Lenk and Colburn were deposed since they were involved. These are very good reasons why it was publicly acknowledged that LE tied to the lawsuit would have a conflict of interest.

We know from Douglass Jones that Gene Kusche knew the 1995 phone call was about about the fact that Steven was incarcerated for crimes committed by Gregory Allen. Kusche knew because Andy Colburn told him. That was part of what was uncovered during the process of the lawsuit.

While all this was apparently known and talked about among Manitowoc County LE, Colburn didn't write up a report about this phone call until 8 years later.

As we know, the phone call could have gotten Steven out of prison years earlier if this explosive information hadn't been deliberately ignored. That's why Colburn and his boss Lenk could very well be liable in the civil rights lawsuit.

Lucky for them Steven was accused of another crime and had to settle before any more depositions could be conducted and even more malfeasance discovered.

It's also simpler to explain the tides by saying 'God does it' instead of some outlandish theory involving the sun, the moon, and gravity, and fluid mechanics.



There's nothing outlandish to suggesting cops might have planted evidence. If you ever decide to start reading newspapers or watching news programs about LE in the US you will find it's depressingly common.

That is one of the reason there are protocols to follow, and proper procedures: to safeguard the public. Things have gotten so bad in the US that many cops are being required to wear body cameras in an attempt to keep them honest.

I'm just pointing out a huge flaw in your argument, bro - something you should have figured out on your own.

There was no 'moving goal post' since I didn't say 'all the evidence'. Along with getting your facts right and the proper use of logic, you need to work on your reading comprehension.

County and its employees not covered for malfeasance.

Besides that, had Steven won his suit it would have had other likely consequences:

Kocourek and Vogel would have had criminal charges brought against them.

Andy and Lenk would probably lose their jobs, as well as possibly faced criminal charges.

Gene Kouche would probably lose his job.

Beerntsen could file her own lawsuit against Manitowoc County.

All of Gregory Allens Victims from 1985 -1995 would have had ground to sue Manitowoc County LE.

Another indication corpus vile has zero idea what he's babbling about.

^^Viewed this pavlovian nutjob's post & saw that this is the only thing it mentioned that's worth addressing & refuting:
DOJ investigation found no evidence of corruption or malfeasance (although I'm sure that means that they're in on the conspiracy too) & county was covered by liability insurance & it should look up the meaning of the word "liability" before posting.
As was already pointed out itt the validity of the lawsuit didn't rely on proving corruption & his lawyers settled anyway.

Rest of its post is yet more of its dribble so not even worth entertaining.

Avery did win his suit and none of the above happened, so I think it's safe to assume that you're an idiot.

However I'm curious as to how your logic works. I mean, Beernstein and Allen's other victims could sue the county anyway if they thought they had a case. If any of the cops had committed criminal offenses they could still face charges (depending on statute of limitations). None of this is in any way contingent on Avery's winning his suit.

There is a difference between the source of the tides and saying the police planted evidence to frame Avery. Its called evidence. If someone were to produce evidence that all these things happened, the conversation would be different. Until then, assuming the most complicated explanation when a simpler one fits the evidence is illogical.

For example, if I cannot locate my car keys my first response is not going to be that someone broke into my house, stole my car keys, left my car in its location and left no traces of a break in. My first response is going to be that I misplaced my car keys. If however, I noticed my window was broken, all my shelves were turned inside out and my car was missing, I may start to investigate who stole my car.

This is kind of logic 101 by the way.

There is no doubt people thought this was about Avery. There is no doubt Colborn later assumed as much as well. There is however, noway of knowing who the phone call was actually about.

What is most important here is that there was no requirement for Colborn to document every single call he took. Especially when his supervisor (the one who was sued) was supposed to be looking into this.

According to Kusche, the first time he'd heard anything about the call was around 2003, and he does not recall the specifics of the conversation.

Colborn does not recall the detective mentioning any names to him in the phone call.

At the time, Colborn was working at the County Jail as a corrections officer. The person who called with info called the wrong place. According to Colborn, he gave the person a detective's phone number and may have even tried transferring the call, but he is not sure if it went through.

Avery advocates are simply delusional when they think that a grave injustice was committed when Colborn did not write a report in 1995 about this call. He was a corrections officer who merely transferred a call to the proper department.

When Colborn wrote a report in 2003, it was because the sheriff asked him to document what he recalled happening. If they didn't document this, no one would ever even know about it, so I'm unsure how this is evidence of a conspiracy - in fact, I would think it's evidence that there wasn't one.

However, conspiracy theorists will continue to theorize.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...-2003Sep12.pdf

I thought he transferred the call to kocurek? Guess I was wrong.