1000 users online (128 members and 872 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 5 of 28 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 413
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,438
    Lets also keep in mind that lenk and these other guys are the same guys who excluded credible lead in the rape conviction.

    Not just the same department, the same guys.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    5,301
    Quote Originally Posted by missy1974 View Post

    Colborn testified: "Well, I'll be the first to admit I handled it rather roughly, twisting it, shaking it, pulling it."

    Is it logical that everything on that bookcase (what they call it lol I would call it a night table/end table) would still be there the way it is? a piece of paper.... a remote... the stuff on the bottom didn't fall out while he was twisting/shaking/pulling?
    Snipped for space/focus: Nope, it's not remotely logical. Another reason I believe it was planted.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,263
    It amazes me that people continue to use the same standards of proof you would expect from a typical case. In simplest terms trust LE to know what they are doing and to have integrity. Well we did that the first time with these same guys and this very same man went to prison for 18 years for a crime he didn't commit.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Everything I post without a supporting link is always JMO.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    7,304
    Quote Originally Posted by missy1974 View Post
    now that I have figured out how to post a picture.... lol
    Attachment 87040

    Colborn testified: "Well, I'll be the first to admit I handled it rather roughly, twisting it, shaking it, pulling it."

    Is it logical that everything on that bookcase (what they call it lol I would call it a night table/end table) would still be there the way it is? a piece of paper.... a remote... the stuff on the bottom didn't fall out while he was twisting/shaking/pulling?
    I see the car key. But where the heck is the house key?
    You can fool some of the people some of the time; But guess what? The Bus Stops Here (Life No Parole/ Don't Pass Go: Don't Collect Your $200)

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    5,301
    Quote Originally Posted by DexterMorgan View Post
    I see the car key. But where the heck is the house key?
    I been sayin'!! :P

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,438
    Quote Originally Posted by DexterMorgan View Post
    I see the car key. But where the heck is the house key?
    This has been posed by many. Surely friends/family can at least testify to where she kept her house keys and other keys.

    So if we see a valet key, with no other keys. Yes, it deserves explanation.

    But of course no explanation is needed if it's unreasonable to think law enforcement might plant evidence.

    If that were the case, Law Enforcement should feel free to plant as much evidence as they like, because there's no way they'd ever be caught.

    Which kind of lends more support towards how confident one might be that they could get away with it.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxManning View Post
    No one is claiming that they weren't investigated. But is it foolish to claim that they were, without any record of those interviews ?

    Again, the previous rape conviction was done by excluding a guy who they had not investigated, yet other law enforcement had significant reason to believe he was the guy -- and ultimately was proven to be the guy.

    Yet for some reason, you seem to think it's foolish for us to assume that it might be the case again, that they have either obtained information or not even looked for information about this current case that might link to other suspects.

    Is that accurate ? don't want to put words in your mouth.

    But it sounds like you are saying that it would have been foolish for us to claim that there wasn't a proper investigation in the rape conviction, just because we had no idea -- because they excluded any record of knowledge that they factually had. They chose not to put this guy in the lineup.

    So not clear on why it's foolish to claim they might do the EXACT SAME THING!

    ok, please explain to me , why I should not question that they'd do the same thing again ?
    I think it's not a good argument to say "They did this before, so why wouldn't they do this again?"

    Especially since it's clear that another county is in charge of the investigation, one that had nothing to do with the investigation in 1985.

    I think it's foolish to assume something without knowing the truth and then use that assumption to support something else as if it's fact- i.e. "The LE might not have investigated their leads therefore there was no other evidence for the defense to point to other suspects in the trial".

    Is it possible? Sure. But I don't see what really points to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxManning View Post
    Lets also keep in mind that lenk and these other guys are the same guys who excluded credible lead in the rape conviction.

    Not just the same department, the same guys.
    This is not true. Colborn and Lenk weren't the ones at fault in the 1985 investigation (not sure if they were even there back then). Regarding the 1995 call, Colborn (and Lenk if he knew too) both did their jobs, which is to tell their boss, Koceurek. Koceurek was the one at fault for anything, and that's why Koceurek was the only LE named in the lawsuit.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Sleuther87 View Post
    I think it's not a good argument to say "They did this before, so why wouldn't they do this again?"

    Especially since it's clear that another county is in charge of the investigation, one that had nothing to do with the investigation in 1985.

    I think it's foolish to assume something without knowing the truth and then use that assumption to support something else as if it's fact- i.e. "The LE might not have investigated their leads therefore there was no other evidence for the defense to point to other suspects in the trial".

    Is it possible? Sure. But I don't see what really points to that.



    This is not true. Colborn and Lenk weren't the ones at fault in the 1985 investigation (not sure if they were even there back then). Regarding the 1995 call, Colborn (and Lenk if he knew too) both did their jobs, which is to tell their boss, Koceurek. Koceurek was the one at fault for anything, and that's why Koceurek was the only LE named in the lawsuit.

    I stand corrected if that is the case. I think you are correct that they weren't named in the lawsuit, but gave depositions for the lawsuit in regards to that case.

    But that shows connection to the case.

    If there was no perception of reason to be concerned, why would they remove their department from leading the case ?

    That's something you do, when you believe there is a conflict of interests.

    Then, when you go ahead and get involved to the point of finding key evidence, isn't that the reason you wanted to remove yourself from that case ? To remove doubt of shenanigans ?

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Sleuther87 View Post
    I think it's foolish to assume something without knowing the truth and then use that assumption to support something else as if it's fact- i.e. "The LE might not have investigated their leads therefore there was no other evidence for the defense to point to other suspects in the trial".
    Is it possible? Sure. But I don't see what really points to that.
    Well, explain to me how exactly someone would ever be able to suggest that law enforcement didn't investigate the case properly, leading to overlooking reasonable suspects -- like in the rape conviction.

    You use the word foolish to give emphasis, but it's not foolish at all to ask questions when there is reason to be suspicious.

    The fact they removed themselves from the case, was to avoid suspicion. Were they foolish to assume that ?

    Lets stop using the word foolish to try and make our point appear stronger than it is. Agreed ?

    -- i am saying that last part lightheartedly, because I don't think it's good to use a borderline insult towards anyone to bolster a point. I apologize to all for engaging in that .

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Sleuther87 View Post
    Regarding the 1995 call, Colborn (and Lenk if he knew too) both did their jobs, which is to tell their boss, Koceurek. Koceurek was the one at fault for anything, and that's why Koceurek was the only LE named in the lawsuit.
    So , colburn writing up the report however many years later was him post-dating doing his job ? Or because maybe he didn't do his job ? Was it his job back then to document it or many years later ?

    Is that suspicious ? or completely reasonable ?

    I get that more could be read into any situation, but I don't feel as if I am personally reading more into the circumstances, as I personally am not convinced of planting of evidence.

    But not because I don't believe they had motive, means, and opportunity.

    I just find it reasonable to be aware of that possibility, and therefore ask MORE questions. That's all.


  11. #71
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxManning View Post
    I stand corrected if that is the case. I think you are correct that they weren't named in the lawsuit, but gave depositions for the lawsuit in regards to that case.

    But that shows connection to the case.
    Their connection was that they reported it to their boss Koceurek, as they're supposed to do.

    Connection does not equal wrongdoing.

    If there was no perception of reason to be concerned, why would they remove their department from leading the case ?

    That's something you do, when you believe there is a conflict of interests.
    Yes, which is why saying LE did a bad job in 1985 is irrelevant.


    Then, when you go ahead and get involved to the point of finding key evidence, isn't that the reason you wanted to remove yourself from that case ? To remove doubt of shenanigans ?
    We don't know the details, all we know is a clip from a press conference (I don't even think they give us the date of that press conference).

    We do know Lenk and Colborn definitely were allowed to be there and were being supervised by Calumet LE.


    Quote Originally Posted by MaxManning View Post
    So , colburn writing up the report however many years later was him post-dating doing his job ? Or because maybe he didn't do his job ? Was it his job back then to document it or many years later ?

    Is that suspicious ? or completely reasonable ?
    The statement is completely reasonable.
    I don't know if his job was to document in 1995 or not, but the reason to write a statement in 2003 is to have everything on record (so they know all the details of what happened in case a lawsuit ever happens). The statement hurts LE, it doesn't help them, so I don't get how that statement is suspicious.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    5,301
    It's HIGHLY relevant that they did a "bad job" back then, IMO.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxManning View Post
    Well, explain to me how exactly someone would ever be able to suggest that law enforcement didn't investigate the case properly, leading to overlooking reasonable suspects -- like in the rape conviction.

    You use the word foolish to give emphasis, but it's not foolish at all to ask questions when there is reason to be suspicious.

    The fact they removed themselves from the case, was to avoid suspicion. Were they foolish to assume that ?
    It would look suspicious if the same LE from 1985 case investigated this case.

    To remove suspicion, a different county's LE is used to investigate this case.

    MaxManning is still suspicious that LE didn't investigate all relevant leads, because ________.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    5,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Sleuther87 View Post
    To remove suspicion, a different county's LE is used to investigate this case.
    Do you deny that Manitowoc County officers were on that property investigating? I'm confused.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawny View Post
    Do you deny that Manitowoc County officers were on that property investigating? I'm confused.
    That has nothing to do with whether LE investigated all the relevant leads, which is what we've been discussing, unless the goalposts have changed.

Page 5 of 28 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. For Those Who Do Not Think Avery was Framed & Evidence Planted - Discuss
    By Madeleine74 in forum Netflix Series: Making A Murderer
    Replies: 690
    Last Post: Yesterday, 12:09 AM
  2. SC - Student planted pipe bombs at school
    By OneLostGrl in forum Crimes-Spotlight on Children
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-28-2010, 01:09 AM
  3. CA - Nails Planted in CA playground
    By JBean in forum Crimes-Spotlight on Children
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-17-2010, 10:57 AM
  4. DA candidates say pornography planted
    By Quincy in forum Bizarre and Off-Beat News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-01-2004, 02:19 PM

Tags for this Thread