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

08-08-2018 , 12:13 PM
08-08-2018 , 12:30 PM
Is there a "The Staircase" thread somewhere? Just finished it (never heard of the case before) and I thought it was worth discussing.
08-08-2018 , 12:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamikam Making a Murderer
Is there a "The Staircase" thread somewhere? Just finished it (never heard of the case before) and I thought it was worth discussing.
I believe there was one for the original HBO documentary (I think the Netflix one is using all of that footage anyway but I am not sure)

We have discussed that case in this thread though if you want to search it.
08-08-2018 , 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Colborn and Lenk were not sued by avery at any point in time. They testified on averys behalf because Colborn felt there was a chance his supervisor didn't property document his call. The call that MAY HAVE been about avery.

Lenks only involvement was telling colborn to file a report once the two discovered that the call could have been about a man who actually was innocent and nothing was done about it.
Yes, Lenk and Colburn were deposed in the lawsuit and their inaction regarding the solid lead to the guilty party in the 1985 case could have resulted in unfortunate consequences for them personally, and not just for the department they worked for.

So the answer is 'Yes, they were involved in the lawsuit, exactly as proudfootz pointed out.'

Quote:
Neither man was "banned" from the site. The sheriff did a press conference where he assured the public that manitwoc wasn't leading the investigation and would only be there to assist.. Which is exactly what they did.
That the Calumet Sheriff admitted that their involvement was dubious due to the readily apparent conflict of interest should tell you something.

The importance of that admission wasn't lost on me, though.

Quote:
The only evidence that was discovered by lenk/colborn to my knowledge was the key. Important to note that lenk and colborn were in the trailer the night before searching his bedroom and didn't discover the key. This leads to an interesting question for your theory that they were somehow planting evidence.

Did Lenk and colborn have the key prior to searching the night before?

1) If they did, why not plant it then? Afterall, they didn't know they were returning the next day.

2) If they didn't, where the hell did the key come from? Did they locate the key somewhere else on the property? Wouldn't that still implicate avery? Why move the key?
Where did this lonely mysteriously materializing key come from? A good question. It wasn't there before.
08-08-2018 , 03:17 PM
Quote:
Yes, Lenk and Colburn were deposed in the lawsuit and their inaction regarding the solid lead to the guilty party in the 1985 case could have resulted in unfortunate consequences for them personally, and not just for the department they worked for.

So the answer is 'Yes, they were involved in the lawsuit, exactly as proudfootz pointed out.'
This is not why they were deposed. For one, there is nothing to indicate Lenk even knew about this phone call prior to 2003. What "inaction" did he take on the "solid lead"? Secondly, Colborn forwarded the call to the person he was supposed to per his procedure. Lastly, they were deposed to testify against the retired sheriff and deputy.. the ones being sued.
08-08-2018 , 03:19 PM
Quote:
Where did this lonely mysteriously materializing key come from? A good question. It wasn't there before.
So where did it come from? Give me a theory that even makes a lick of sense.

Do you think it more likely either

A:Colborn had it prior to the day he claims he found it

or

B: Found it elsewhere either in the room or on the property that day?
08-08-2018 , 03:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I believe there was one for the original HBO documentary (I think the Netflix one is using all of that footage anyway but I am not sure)

We have discussed that case in this thread though if you want to search it.
Is there a consensus ? He did it and the docu is even 100x more biased than MAM, right ?
08-08-2018 , 03:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamikam Making a Murderer
Is there a consensus ? He did it and the docu is even 100x more biased than MAM, right ?
I think he probably did it. The doc is not nearly as biased as Making a Murderer from what I remember. The way MAM distorts the truth is truly something of legend.

I actually left The Staircase thinking he did it based on his interaction with his attorney when the poker was found. It has been a couple years since Ive seen it though.
08-08-2018 , 03:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
The doc is not nearly as biased as Making a Murderer from what I remember. The way MAM distorts the truth is truly something of legend.
You gotta be kidding. MAM is biased (and I for one am torn on whether he/they did it) but The Staircase is full on PR documentary. At least in MAM they mention the embarassing stuff for the defendant whereas in TS it takes 7-8 episode to hear a brief mention of extremely damning evidences they could have mentionned in the first episode.

MAM is biased, but TS is a god damn PR operation.
08-08-2018 , 03:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
You're right, perhaps she snuck into averys bedroom, stole his rifle, shot herself in the head, then crawled over to the bon fire without avery noticing.
That's not what I am arguing.

What is the name of this strawman you think you'd prefer to debate?

Quote:
Being the sweet guy avery is he disposed of all of Teresas things to prevent the embarrassment to her family that their daughter killed herself.
There's zero evidence Steven touched any of Teresa's things. You've lost all contact with reality.

Quote:
Barb didn't want to sell that vehicle. Whether or not she knew it was being sold is irrelevant to my point. She told avery she didn't want to sell it. He was persistent that she must sell it and they got into a fight about it.
They may have had an argument about the van. But that didn't change the fact that the result of the disagreement was that the van would be sold. Everyone knew it was to be sold, everyone knew who was selling it. No one was fooled, and no one attempted to fool anyone about it.

Another non-issue that has grown in the minds of some as 'important evidence'.

Quote:
It is apparent Teresa didn't know she was seeing steven because she asked for directions to be faxed to her and it is a rather large property.
It really doesn't matter - Teresa had no issues with Steven, and Steven had no issues with Teresa. They had a professional relationship.

Another non-issuse whose importance some wish they could inflate.

Quote:
Another thing to ask. Has he asked for Teresa using someone elses name before?
Since Barb Janda was the one selling the van, obviously Janda's name would be attached to the sale.

I don't know if Steven was responsible with arranging the sale of anyone else's vehicles. Since it's clear Steven was in charge of either fixing up the van or buying a new vehicle for his sister's kids, it makes sense that he'd have a say in the best way to go about it.

Quote:
And Why did he call her blocked only before she showed up but not after?
I don't know. But it is meaningless.

Quote:
No such thing has been discovered. This is all nonsense.
Actually, the fact that the state's star witness was actually researching violent porn about raping, injuring, and killing women on the very day of Teresa's disappearance, and that he was the last person to see Teresa alive is interesting information that makes him a very viable suspect.

The computer analysis shows that this suspect lied on the stand (claiming he was asleep when he was actually viewing violent porn that parallels the crimes thought to be committed against the woman he was last to see).

Shocking as it is that the prosecution conducted zero investigation into this suspect, the allowed this suspect to lie his ass off on their behalf on the witness stand.

We also know the prosecution kept this information from the defense, a clear violation of the Brady rule.
08-08-2018 , 03:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
This is not why they were deposed. For one, there is nothing to indicate Lenk even knew about this phone call prior to 2003. What "inaction" did he take on the "solid lead"? Secondly, Colborn forwarded the call to the person he was supposed to per his procedure. Lastly, they were deposed to testify against the retired sheriff and deputy.. the ones being sued.
Colburn and Lenk were deposed.

So, yes they were involved in the lawsuit.

The more you try and deny the fact the odder it seems that you're desperate to cover up the fact.
08-08-2018 , 03:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I think he probably did it. The doc is not nearly as biased as Making a Murderer from what I remember. The way MAM distorts the truth is truly something of legend.

I actually left The Staircase thinking he did it based on his interaction with his attorney when the poker was found. It has been a couple years since Ive seen it though.
I heard about this on a podcast, I think it was Dana Gould's podcast, but I can't remember now. They talked about how Mike Nifong (Duke lacrosse prosecutor) was involved in the case and the narrator suggested that the main reason Peterson was convicted was because someone else he knew years earlier also fell down a staircase. Also something about an owl. Details are hazy though.
08-08-2018 , 04:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamikam Making a Murderer
You gotta be kidding. MAM is biased (and I for one am torn on whether he/they did it) but The Staircase is full on PR documentary. At least in MAM they mention the embarassing stuff for the defendant whereas in TS it takes 7-8 episode to hear a brief mention of extremely damning evidences they could have mentionned in the first episode.

MAM is biased, but TS is a god damn PR operation.
If both were produced from the viewpoint of the defense then I'd expect both to be biased in favor of the defendants.
08-08-2018 , 04:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
So where did it come from? Give me a theory that even makes a lick of sense.
Well, the prosecution theory doesn't make a lick of sense.

Once we have eliminated their ridiculous assertions, we have to consider a more likely scenario.

We're left with trying to explain how a single key on a lanyard suddenly appears by itself the floor after the tiny room was already searched for 2 1/2 hours just a couple of days earlier.



Quote:
Do you think it more likely either

A:Colborn had it prior to the day he claims he found it

or

B: Found it elsewhere either in the room or on the property that day?
Had the key been found elsewhere in the house or on the property before it was placed on the floor of Steven's room, there'd be no reason to plant it where it was allegedly 'found'. So I'd suggest that this is a low probability.

So the only realistic option appears to be that someone brought the key into the room. So the sensible solution to the question is that someone possessed the key/lanyard prior to the its 'discovery'.

08-08-2018 , 04:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamikam Making a Murderer
You gotta be kidding. MAM is biased (and I for one am torn on whether he/they did it) but The Staircase is full on PR documentary. At least in MAM they mention the embarassing stuff for the defendant whereas in TS it takes 7-8 episode to hear a brief mention of extremely damning evidences they could have mentionned in the first episode.

MAM is biased, but TS is a god damn PR operation.
I really cant speak too much to TS, ive seen the series once a couple of years ago and that is about the extant of my knowledge of it. MAM however, splices testimony, presents evidence that wasn't even used in trial and acts like it was dismissed unfairly (speaking of the hole in the vial here), lies about events surrounding stevens history especially the event where he held his cousin at gunpoint after flashing her his penis, misrepresented literally every piece of evidence.. For example claiming there were 7 searches in averys room when there were only 2, saying the bullet couldn't be matched to averys gun (leaving out the fact that there were two fragments and the one with Teresa dna on it was) making it appear like avery was suing people he wasn't or like they could be implicated, lying about the insurance not willing to pay the settlement when they in fact did pay his settlement.

just to name a few things.
08-08-2018 , 04:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Namath12 Making a Murderer
I heard about this on a podcast, I think it was Dana Gould's podcast, but I can't remember now. They talked about how Mike Nifong (Duke lacrosse prosecutor) was involved in the case and the narrator suggested that the main reason Peterson was convicted was because someone else he knew years earlier also fell down a staircase. Also something about an owl. Details are hazy though.
Yea, his exe fell down a flight of stairs. It was implied by the state that the two were connected somehow. That hes killed people and made it look like an accident previously.

I think his wife had owl feathers in her hand so someone suggested it could have been an owl attack. im not sure if this defense was ever used though.
08-08-2018 , 04:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Namath12 Making a Murderer
If both were produced from the viewpoint of the defense then I'd expect both to be biased in favor of the defendants.
For some reason the prosecution in both cases declined to have their actions recorded by documentarians.

They can hardly complain about widespread skepticism regarding their methods if they prefer to operate in secret.

IIRC the prosecution 'expert' in the Peterson case was exposed as a fraud and a liar.

That explains that.
08-08-2018 , 04:15 PM
Quote:
So the only realistic option appears to be that someone brought the key into the room. So the sensible solution to the question is that someone possessed the key/lanyard prior to the its 'discovery'.
Great! So why was it not planted on nov 5th instead of nov 8th? They had no idea they were returning to the room to conduct a second search.
08-08-2018 , 04:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamikam Making a Murderer
You gotta be kidding. MAM is biased (and I for one am torn on whether he/they did it) but The Staircase is full on PR documentary. At least in MAM they mention the embarassing stuff for the defendant whereas in TS it takes 7-8 episode to hear a brief mention of extremely damning evidences they could have mentionned in the first episode.

MAM is biased, but TS is a god damn PR operation.
I'd be interested in hearing what you are referring to specifically. Watched the original series years ago and don't remember anything damning late on.
08-08-2018 , 04:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Great! So why was it not planted on nov 5th instead of nov 8th? They had no idea they were returning to the room to conduct a second search.
I don't know what Lenk or Colburn knew about whether they would search the same room yet again on November 8th.

If Colburn in fact planted the key on the 8th, I have no way of knowing whether he had it in his possession on the 5th.

There is no logical necessity that Colburn must have it on the 5th if he has it on the 8th since the two searches are days apart in time, during which events may occur and people might do things.
08-08-2018 , 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Great! So why was it not planted on nov 5th instead of nov 8th? They had no idea they were returning to the room to conduct a second search.
There's no way to know if Colburn or Lenk (likely planters) had the key in their possession on the 5th. Unless they talk.
08-08-2018 , 05:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Namath12 Making a Murderer
I heard about this on a podcast, I think it was Dana Gould's podcast, but I can't remember now. They talked about how Mike Nifong (Duke lacrosse prosecutor) was involved in the case and the narrator suggested that the main reason Peterson was convicted was because someone else he knew years earlier also fell down a staircase. Also something about an owl. Details are hazy though.
https://www.cbs17.com/news/michael-p...lea/1016922555

Quote:
"It has always been, and remains today, the State's position that Michael Peterson is responsible for the death of Kathleen Peterson," District Attorney Roger Echols said in a news release after the hearing.

The decision to strike a plea deal was made in consultation with Kathleen Peterson's family, Echols said.

"It is my sincere hope that the final disposition of this case provides a measure of justice as they continue to honor Kathleen's memory," he said.

Defense attorney David Rudolf emphasized that Peterson, even accepting the plea, maintains his innocence.

"The bottom line is that Peterson is not guilty," Rudolf said during the hearing. "He did not get a fair trial."

Kathleen Peterson's sister said that she has long believed in Peterson's guilt and that the important part of the plea deal is his conviction, not his insistence that he's innocence.

"Alford shmalford," she said, referencing Peterson's insistence on an Alford plea rather than a guilty plea
* An Alford plea actually is a guilty plea technically, even if the defendant professes innocence.

Quote:
An Alford plea (also called a Kennedy plea in West Virginia,[1] an Alford guilty plea[2][3][4] and the Alford doctrine[5][6][7]), in United States law, is a guilty plea in criminal court,[8][9][10] whereby a defendant in a criminal case does not admit to the criminal act and asserts innocence.[11][12][13] In entering an Alford plea, the defendant admits that the evidence presented by the prosecution would be likely to persuade a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.[5][14][15][16][17]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alford_plea

Rebuttal site to The Staircase here.

http://www.peterson-staircase.com/

Forensic files episode on the case here







Lol
https://twitter.com/Fred_J_Walsh/sta...14830983106561

Last edited by corpus vile; 08-08-2018 at 05:14 PM.
08-08-2018 , 05:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
I don't know what Lenk or Colburn knew about whether they would search the same room yet again on November 8th.

If Colburn in fact planted the key on the 8th, I have no way of knowing whether he had it in his possession on the 5th.

There is no logical necessity that Colburn must have it on the 5th if he has it on the 8th since the two searches are days apart in time, during which events may occur and people might do things.
So in other words one of the 3 scenarios is more likely than the key either falling from the backboard or coat by the desk

1) Lenk/colborn obtained the key from the real killer sometime between the 5th-8th
2) Lenk/Colborn had possession of the key prior to the 5th but held off planting it until the 8th because... reasons
3) Lenk/Colborn obtained the key off the property between the 5th-8th

I think there are way bigger problems with all three of these scenarios than the key falling from behind a shelf or from a coat.
08-08-2018 , 05:14 PM
Wait, Peterson is free?
08-08-2018 , 05:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
So in other words one of the 3 scenarios is more likely than the key either falling from the backboard or coat by the desk

1) Lenk/colborn obtained the key from the real killer sometime between the 5th-8th
2) Lenk/Colborn had possession of the key prior to the 5th but held off planting it until the 8th because... reasons
3) Lenk/Colborn obtained the key off the property between the 5th-8th

I think there are way bigger problems with all three of these scenarios than the key falling from behind a shelf or from a coat.
Whose coat would it likely have 'fallen' from - Lenk's or Colburn's?

There doesn't seem to be any coat belonging to Steven Avery in the vicinity.

The shelves are pointing away from the location where the key supposedly suddenly materialized.

FFS - even the cop that was supposed to be keeping an eye on Lenk & Colburn because of their obvious conflict of interest thinks they could have planted the key:

"What about your observations (makes) you believe (it) was impossible or improbable to plant that key?" Kratz continued.

"My actual observations, I would have to say that it could be possible, as in I was doing other things, I was taking photographs, I was searching the nightstand," Kucharski said. "So if we're just limiting it to if it was possible they could do it without me seeing it, then yes, I guess it is possible."

      
m