Colborn and Lenk... a couple of questions for experts

[Safeguard]

The problem for that theory for me is, she went missing on Halloween and wasn't reported until the 3rd. So Colborn was just lucky enough to be the first one to find the car of a just reported missing woman, who was last known to be alive at SA's, The perfect scenario for framing the man with the lawsuit just falls into his lap?

That's why I say, I've thought about it. I've thought about it a lot. I do strongly suspect the car was planted, could have been by the perp, or LE could have found her already deceased, and took advantage of the situation.

I do believe AC was looking at that car when he made that call, I am less certain about where he was at the time, but if he was not at the salvage yard, that would go a long way to explaining his demeanor in court.

I don't think it was a happy accident for LE. I would bet a million dollars they had SA under surveillance, I don't think they needed any phone list, or appointment scedual to know she had been by SA's. They probably started searching near there immediately. (Which is why I lean toward LE putting her car on the lot, because they most likely, would have seen anyone else put it there).

 

[missy1974]

I don't think it was a happy accident for LE. I would bet a million dollars they had SA under surveillance, I don't think they needed any phone list, or appointment scedual to know she had been by SA's.

that thought has crossed my mind as well! Just waiting for him to make the wrong move.

 

[Nocturnal 911]

Or he was in the "library" taking a dump with his gun belt around his ankles and no immediate pen to take down the DATA when the inital BOLO came over his portable??
and he called into dispatch to verify the MP's name and vehicle description????

Just sayin.................... so many logical explanations for things that the general public isn't privy to.

That's why I say, I've thought about it. I've thought about it a lot. I do strongly suspect the car was planted, could have been by the perp, or LE could have found her already deceased, and took advantage of the situation.

I do believe AC was looking at that car when he made that call, I am less certain about where he was at the time, but if he was not at the salvage yard, that would go a long way to explaining his demeanor in court.

I don't think it was a happy accident for LE. I would bet a million dollars they had SA under surveillance, I don't think they needed any phone list, or appointment scedual to know she had been by SA's. They probably started searching near there immediately. (Which is why I lean toward LE putting her car on the lot, because they most likely, would have seen anyone else put it there).

 

[Nocturnal 911]

NEVER?? never say never lol.......... (re-post) from my response to another user..

Or he was in the "library" taking a dump with his gun belt around his ankles and no immediate pen to take down the DATA when the inital BOLO came over his portable??
and he called into dispatch to verify the MP's name and vehicle description????

Just sayin.................... so many logical explanations for things that the general public isn't privy to. I can give you one thousand similar examples of why an officer would call in plates for vehicles he's never even laid eyes on...........................

That would imply normal procedure. I have never, ever heard of plates being called in unless near them. *sorry rant*

 

[Nocturnal 911]

1000% believable to me. ESPECIALLY in the biggest, most high-profile, fast paced case of his life where he's concerned about locating and potentially saving her. The minor tasks/details become irrelevant or take a back seat. If he wasn't prepared to answer the attorney because he didn't know the question was coming how on earth would he have known to pro-actively look up the date?? Crazy incidents that go on for days---------> everything is a blur!

If Colborn's reason for calling in the plates is totally innocent (like, say, he wrote down the number earlier and was calling to confirm), then why could he NOT remember even the DAY he called it in? Why did he have no explanation for that call, aside from a shoulder shrug and "Iunno" as an answer?

Honestly, had he had a solid answer to that question, I'd be like "aight" and not give it another thought. He couldn't remember ONE phone call in the "most important case in Wisconsin history"? It's been said here in these forums they don't investigate murders all the time, so why couldn't he remember??

 

[Nocturnal 911]

A. If he didn't know he was going to be asked the date and time on the stand how on earth would he recall where he was standing, what phone he used for sure, IF he used his portable, car radio, or to HAVE his cellphone records ready to "hand over" as you say.
B. he ABSOLUTELY KNEW that the line was recorded
C. Probably knew WHAT line, if any, WASN'T recorded if he was trying to be shady or hide something. He could have called a DISPATCHER on HER cell if he wanted his question off the record entirely. ie: "cheese or no cheese on your quarter pounder?" hypothetically speaking :shush:

I AM NOT SAYING he didn't lie his face off or hide anything-- simply giving insight into how stuff goes down. This case would have been chaos level TEN. Stretching all local, surrounding and state police as well as the local dispatch centers to their limits in the first initial days.

He called from his personal cell phone, not the police radio. Did he know it would be recorded? The same guy that said he didn't write a report until 8 months later because "he didn't know he had to do that"

Why would he make that call???? Even he didn't have an answer in court LOL

Too bad the defense couldn't subpoena his cell records, they would have been able to narrow down the time maybe.
Or if it wasn't under suspicious circumstances, and was something routine, and he called it in when he was on duty, maybe while investigating the case (double checking his info or something), just hand over the records and say seeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

 

[Nocturnal 911]

WARRANT?? For calling plates in? He doesn't need a warrant for that. Not saying he isn't shady or citizen of the year, I don't know a thing about the man.

But if he's- let's say? Face down in a pile of fries w gravy at a local diner eating his first meal in 9 hours and local waitress says "hey, we want to keep a look out for that car and hang the info on the wall in the kitchen, what's the license plate number again?" and his stack of case info in in the patrol car 4 blocks away and although he CAN AFFORD to skip a meal, doesn't feel like walking his unfit arse to the car-- he's going to call dispatch. Ten ways to hide that call if he wanted to. He absolutely KNEW all lines recorded. Ten thousand ways to also FORGET why he did it 3yrs later when surprised with the question on the stand. Finding a missing person that might be saved would take priority in your mind to minor details like remembering that his favorite waitress "Flo" asked for victim info ya know?

So, if he states he called in the plates on 11/03/05; where was the warrant?

The Avery property is the last known location of the RAV4? Correct?

 

[Nocturnal 911]

Makes me wonder if he (they-prosecution) couldn't have provided that info had they known the question was coming? All lines are recorded and time stamped, unless recording software was archaic or too old school back then? Not saying that recordings are kept forever, the limits vary--- but the time and date MUST have been stamped somewhere ESPECIALLY considering the recording was retrieved and preserved for court. Makes me wonder if the defense attorneys KNEW the answer to the question (he wasn't prepared) but the answer didn't serve their purpose so they dropped it there???

Maybe the prosecution didn't follow up later and save his arse because they failed to anticipate it? The fact the defense FOILED the recordings would be buried in the discovery, but maybe they missed it??? Maybe they didn't have the actual dates on hand to dispute the insinuation his call was suspicious in nature?

She wasn't even reported missing until the afternoon of Nov 3rd. The RAV4 was found the morning of Nov 5th. He "guesses" he called on the 3rd because he was not on duty on the 4th. I find it hard to believe that they didn't have some way of telling the time of that call lol

 

[Nocturnal 911]

He could never lay eyes on that vehicle in his lifetime and I could still rattle off thousands of examples why he might call in the plate. Not saying he's not Pinocchio, just saying it happens alllllllllllllllllll the time!

IMO, he would only make that call if he was sitting behind the car looking at the plates b/c at that time TH was still considered missing. How could that be unless either (1) the car was not on the Avery property at the time of the call and someone found the car, or (2) he was illegally on the Avery property looking at the vehicle. If (2) is the case, who removed the license plates and why was no DNA/blood found on the plate if it was SA, especially with a open cut on his right middle finger ?

 

[Nocturnal 911]

Terrible witness. Seemingly unprepared as well. Not saying he's a liar or not. But his behavior on the stand proves nothing. You'd think ANY person that didn't know would say "I don't recall" butttttttttttttttttttttttt "here are some possible scenerios" ???? He left himself open for all of this scrutiny. Pfffft.......

He didn't even bother to come up with a lie! He just shrugged. Unreal.

 

[Safeguard]

He could never lay eyes on that vehicle in his lifetime and I could still rattle off thousands of examples why he might call in the plate. Not saying he's not Pinocchio, just saying it happens alllllllllllllllllll the time!

Right. I had considered he may have called for clarity about the info he had been given. (It sure didn't sound it, and even he seemed confused as to why said what he did, the way he did. When they played back the tape).

I never thought he was trying to hide that call, as you said, many better ways to do that, I just wonder if he received further instructions, that were hidden, at that point. (Possibly on an un-recorded incoming call).

I don't know if he was looking at the plates or not, but I do believe some shady decisions were made about that car at some point, and he is the only person we have any indication of, possibly knowing something about it, prior to the the Good Lord showing Pam the car.

Maybe he was just a horrible witness and doesn't remember calling about an extremely important plate.

But someone found that car before Pam Strum. That woman did not find that vehicle by divine intervention, (she was lead right to it alright, but not by "GOD"!).

I do find it highly suspect, that AC was calling about those plates, days before it was found. Also jibes with why the plates were removed, crumpled and put in another car right on the property.

 

[Sustained]

Right. I had considered he may have called for clarity about the info he had been given. (It sure didn't sound it, and even he seemed confused as to why said what he did, the way he did. When they played back the tape).

I never thought he was trying to hide that call, as you said, many better ways to do that, I just wonder if he received further instructions, that were hidden, at that point. (Possibly on an un-recorded incoming call).

I don't know if he was looking at the plates or not, but I do believe some shady decisions were made about that car at some point.

Maybe he was just a horrible witness and doesn't remember calling about an extremely important plate.

But someone found that car before Pam Strum. That woman did not find that vehicle by divine intervention, (she was lead right to it alright, but not by "GOD"!).

I do find it highly suspect, that AC was calling about those plates, days before it was found. Also jibes with why the plates were removed, crumpled and put in another car right on the property.

He called in about the plates and says "99 Toyota". Why didn't he confirm the model and color ? Toyota made several different SUV/car models in 1999.

My guess is he was sitting behind the vehicle looking at the RAV4 emblem with the color in perfect view so he didn't need that info.

 

[Safeguard]

He called in about the plates and says "99 Toyota". Why didn't he confirm the model and color ? Toyota made several different SUV/car models in 1999.

My guess is he was sitting behind the vehicle looking at the RAV4 emblem with the color in perfect view so he didn't need that info.

Maybe he was confident he had that info color, model right, and was just clarifying plate/year. But my thoughts lean toward him sitting behind the vehicle also, and making extra sure what he was looking at, before he called...his boss.

 

[Sustained]

Maybe he was confident he had that info color, make right, and was just clarifying plate/year.

Colborn clearly says "99 Toyota" in the call. But not RAV4 or color ...

 

[Safeguard]

Colborn clearly says "99 Toyota" in the call. But not RAV4 or color ...

Right. Sorry. Technical error, my brain has been uploading slowly this morning. I just meant to say, that he wouldn't ask for info he felt confident he could recall.

But he also wouldn't need that info if he was looking at it. I have so many questions;
Where was it originally found, what happened right after that, how was it moved, and /or kept hidden, until it could be placed in the Auto Yard?

 

[missy1974]

The call ~ I don't believe that this call was a surprise at the trial. I would have expected the Prosecution to object, a sidebar, something without the jury to authenticate the call, something.... there was not, which leads me to believe they and Colburn knew it was coming, maybe didn't know the questions he would be asked. He didn't have a good, logical answer to why he made that call. IMO it's shady when you look at the totality of the case.

As for SA being identified early on in those phone records. It's shady. Even if they recognized the address.... SA was not the only one living there. If it had been labelled as Avery Salvage, or someone on Avery rd., but to specifically say SA? It could have been Charles... Barb... Steven... Allen ..... Delores, who else lived there? Dassey boys. So either someone was 100% absolutely aware that it was SA she was meeting that day (Autotrader, ex, friend), or he was being targeted. IMO I would imagine the report was done using the printout that the "friends" handed to the officers that responded to TH's residence, it had phone numbers, names, etc, and very shortly afterwards, Colburn was called and asked to go talk to SA, which he did. It's not like it was hours or days that LE had time to figure it out, they went from the information on her cell records that was handed to them.

RH ~ he was an unemployed, just finished school, was doing nothing else. He didn't give an alibi because he was never asked. I doubt he would be able to remember anyway.... he couldn't even remember what time of day he last seen his friend.

 

[Amber29]

Looking over testimony transcript I noticed that in re direct Colborn explained the phone call about the plates as verification. He said sometimes you are in your car when taking a phone call and need to verify what you wrote down is correct. I can understand that.
Some have said they have never known LE to call in plates that aren't in front of them and that is untrue. For instance my husband reported a theft and gave the officer the license plates of the thief and color/make of vehicle. The officer called in the plate number and verified that it was registered to the make my husband had described and it was. That vehicle was not in front of that officer, he was simply verifying the info given by my husband.

IMO the explanation of him verifying he had the correct plate number, make, and model written down is fine. She had just been reported missing. That is far more plausible to me then him suddenly finding the vehicle of the missing girl right as she was reported missing.

 

[Sustained]

Looking over testimony transcript I noticed that in re direct Colborn explained the phone call about the plates as verification. He said sometimes you are in your car when taking a phone call and need to verify what you wrote down is correct. I can understand that.
Some have said they have never known LE to call in plates that aren't in front of them and that is untrue. For instance my husband reported a theft and gave the officer the license plates of the thief and color/make of vehicle. The officer called in the plate number and verified that it was registered to the make my husband had described and it was. That vehicle was not in front of that officer, he was simply verifying the info given by my husband.

IMO the explanation of him verifying he had the correct plate number, make, and model written down is fine. She had just been reported missing. That is far more plausible to me then him suddenly finding the vehicle of the missing girl right as she was reported missing.

He got the plate number and said "99 Toyota" ... he never got the model or the color from dispatch.

 

[TheDuchess]

He got the plate number and said "99 Toyota" ... he never got the model or the color from dispatch.

I believe SHE said "99 Toyota." ......


never mind....

:jail:

 

[missy1974]

He got the plate number and said "99 Toyota" ... he never got the model or the color from dispatch.

Right. So he verified the plate, and the 99 Toyota, but didn't care that it was a RAV4 or the color.

Also, in his re-direct, yep, he says he was calling to verify it. If that was the case, he should have just right out said that the first time he was asked.... not after a 15 minute break and time to talk to Kratz.

Something else I noticed when skimming back through his testimony.... He never wrote a summary until June 29th 2006 for the evening of November 3rd. Guess what else he was doing on June 29th? Going over his testimony with Kratz for a pretrial hearing in August. Sure glad Kratz was there to make sure Colburn did his job