The Key: Planted or Not? Impact?

[Sleuther87]

hypothetically, if there is a group of us in a room with a bowl of various colored candies with a note saying "pls don't eat", later when it is found that someone ate all the red and blue one's and there is 1 person in that room that has a visibly red tongue but denies they ate any candy, is it reasonable to believe that they are also lying and ate the blue one's too?

LMAOOOOOOO

You just described STEVEN AVERY!!!!!!!

 

[MaxManning]

LMAOOOOOOO

You just described STEVEN AVERY!!!!!!!

When this is your response, should we just assume that you don't want to have a real conversation about the case ?

In the eyes of the police, they likely described him the same way before convicting him of rape -- all the while ignoring the real rapist.

Just explain how it's unreasonable for someone to think that the key could have dropped from lenk's hand ?

It wasn't there before, in a spot that was confirmed by an officer (not avery) to be empty. Suddenly lenk comes in and it's there. Reasonable to suggest he might have dropped it.

But alot easier to derail the conversation with bias remark that has no value in the conversation, instead of being truthful maybe ?

 

[Madeleine74]

So if you can't figure out the situation with the key, and questions were not adequately addressed to make a determination of that item, then toss it from your list of considered evidence.

The jury could have done that as well. They certainly had that choice. The jury is instructed in all cases it is up to them to decide which witnesses to believe in whole or in part, what evidence to give more weight to or less, and they have free reign to do exactly that.

 

[missy1974]

LMAOOOOOOO

You just described STEVEN AVERY!!!!!!!

Steven Avery was not in that room when the key magically appeared from a night stand that was roughly shaken, twisted and turned and it fell out. Lenk, Colburn and their babysitter, the officer sitting on the bed doing paperwork that didn't even know he should be watching them closely were!

 

[Sleuther87]

So if you can't figure out the situation with the key, and questions were not adequately addressed to make a determination of that item, then toss it from your list of considered evidence.

The jury could have done that as well. They certainly had that choice. The jury is instructed in all cases it is up to them to decide which witnesses to believe in whole or in part, what evidence to give more weight to or less, and they have free reign to do exactly that.

Exactly this.

 

[Tawny]

We have no way of knowing what the jurors said, argued about, deliberated, felt, believed, understood, or agreed upon in that room.

We're not the jury, we're on a discussion forum, and we're discussing it. If you don't want to participate in the discussion, feel free to vacate. JMO

 

[MaxManning]

So if you can't figure out the situation with the key, and questions were not adequately addressed to make a determination of that item, then toss it from your list of considered evidence.

The jury could have done that as well. They certainly had that choice. The jury is instructed in all cases it is up to them to decide which witnesses to believe in whole or in part, what evidence to give more weight to or less, and they have free reign to do exactly that.

Right, so if the case was that it was planted and the jury never knows it because it never gets investigated. Is it fair ?

We understand a juror can do with the key evidence as it stands, but it's not about that. It's about how does something of this nature get investigated ?

It's kind of clear that if it doesn't, someone might go to prison unfairly. -- see rape conviction.

Avery went to prison the first time because KNOWN suspect, was never investigated, never shown to victim and therefore was was never presented to a jury. They didn't even need to discard it from their evidence.

Sadly our system seems rather poor at ensuring law enforcement isn't above question. Without breakthroughs in DNA science, Avery would have never got out of prison.

You can rest assured that law enforcement wasn't seeking out cases they might have made mistakes in. It took an independent 3rd party like the Innocence Project to put effort towards uncovering truth.

Your trust is in that it would get investigated somehow, or maybe even that it doesn't need to be investigated. Sadly, I disagree with both.

Either way, I think this thread should go back to core discussion.

discussing things that could support the key being planted or not, and the impact of each scenario.

Personally, I believe if the key was proven as planted it'd be an obvious bombshell.

It might even give the impression that LE is not above the law.

I think minimal independent questioning of the family/friends/coworkers or anyone who might have knowledge of her using/not using valet/master key, what keys were on her ring, could result in evidence to raise/lower probability of that key being the key she used that day.

Beyond that, I'm not even sure there'd be a way to prove lenk had the key and planted it beyond some breakthrough witness with knowledge of how he got it.

But some level of investigation is better than just suggesting it's not reasonable question to have.

It might even give the impression that LE is not above the law.

 

[missy1974]

Either way, I think this thread should go back to core discussion.

I agree!

 

[Sleuther87]

We have no way of knowing what the jurors said, argued about, deliberated, felt, believed, understood, or agreed upon in that room.

We're not the jury, we're on a discussion forum, and we're discussing it. If you don't want to participate in the discussion, feel free to vacate. JMO

This post:

So if you can't figure out the situation with the key, and questions were not adequately addressed to make a determination of that item, then toss it from your list of considered evidence.

The jury could have done that as well. They certainly had that choice. The jury is instructed in all cases it is up to them to decide which witnesses to believe in whole or in part, what evidence to give more weight to or less, and they have free reign to do exactly that.

is very relevant to the discussion! It's discussing the relative importance of the key in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Sleuther87]

Max, let's discuss Colborn.

I'd like to know your thoughts on this:

Colborn testified he was a corrections officer at the Manitowoc County jail in the mid-1990s, when he got a call from an officer from another agency saying someone in their custody may have committed an assault in Manitowoc County. Colborn said he transferred the call to a detective since he wasn't yet a sworn deputy. Avery wasn't mentioned.

If this is true, do you still have reason to believe Colborn did anything wrong regarding the Avery wrongful conviction?

 

[Daae]

Why was the car locked?

Why was the car disabled?

The key appears to be a spare via manufacturer. That would explain why there was no TH DNA on key.

Who would have access to spare key? brother? ex? roommate?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Why was the car locked?

Why was the car disabled?

The key appears to be a spare via manufacturer. That would explain why there was no TH DNA on key.

Who would have access to spare key? brother? ex? roommate?

Just because you get 2 keys does not mean that it is not used.. I have 2 keys for my car on two different rings.. Sometimes I use one and sometimes I use the other.

I don't know why it being the spare key, If this is even true matters? If she used that one.

 

[Daae]

A second key could have been introduced later if it was supplied from her home.

 

[shadowraiths]

Reach out and ask someone in the family. They're probably on social media. Can't imagine they'd lie about it.

I nominate MaxM to contact one of the family members (perhaps TH's brother) and ask about the key and all the questions he and everyone else has about it. Go straight to the source or as close as you can get.

All, please respect Ms. Halbach's family members privacy and DO NOT try to contact any of them. Having their daughter's murder not only brought up again but also being discussed in a very public way, is, I'm sure, extremely hard on them.

We are a victim friendly forum. And, regardless of how anyone feels about the "whodunit," Ms. Halbach is first and foremost, the victim here. Please try to remember that as you are discussing this complex and troubling case.

 

[Daae]

I followed "Anonymous" hackers for a few days before the twitter account went dark. They suggest that the spare key was provided by Mike H.(brother), Ryan H.(ex) or Scott B.(roommate). They also point to an abandoned house 2 miles away on W. Main. It looks like either 7569 or 7551 W Main. This place has a burner for burning carcasses. Hmmm

Perhaps beautiful TH was murdered and burned offsite. It looks really overgrown on Google earth.

(lat 44.274652, long -87.757277) check it out

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I followed "Anonymous" hackers for a few days before the twitter account went dark. They suggest that the spare key was provided by Mike H.(brother), Ryan H.(ex) or Scott B.(roommate). They also point to an abandoned house 2 miles away on W. Main. It looks like either 7569 or 7551 W Main. This place has a burner for burning carcasses. Hmmm

Perhaps beautiful TH was murdered and burned offsite. It looks really overgrown on Google earth.

Hmmmm, interesting.

Isn't there a smelter on the Avery property too. Why didn't SA use it? :waitasec:

 

[DexterMorgan]

Most copied keys for newer cars that wasn't giving by the manufacturer will only unlock the doors but can't fully turn over the ignition to start the car for the most part.

Newer cars do this to sell more keys for $100 each. So if that key can't actually start the car. Then it could have been a duplicate from Walmart or something. But since this was in 05 then maybe this wasn't implemented yet.

But I could be wrong.

 

[Ricochet]

Hypothetically, if there is a group of us in a room with a bowl of various colored candies with a note saying "pls don't eat", later when it is found that someone ate all the red and blue one's and there is 1 person in that room that has a visibly red tongue but denies they ate ANY candy, is it reasonable to believe that they are also lying and ate the blue one's too?

I'd guess that Ken Kratz removed the note that read "pls don't eat" thus allowing one or more innocent people to eat the red and blue candies and then placing the note back in the bowl of candies in an attempt to make the person with the visibly red tongue look guilty. As a side note the person with the visibly red tongue would've been discovered by either Lenk or Colburn several weeks after the fact.

 

[missy1974]

I'd guess that Ken Kratz removed the note that read "pls don't eat" thus allowing one or more innocent people to eat the red and blue candies and then placing the note back in the bowl of candies in an attempt to make the person with the visibly red tongue look guilty. As a side note the person with the visibly red tongue would've been discovered by either Lenk or Colburn several weeks after the fact.

View attachment 87101

you know they wouldn't catch him until Colburn roughly shook and twisted and turned said person and Lenk conveniently dropped a blue candy on floor that landed right by said persons foot. Report will be filed next year ;-)

thanks for the giggle! I have been engrossed in this dang case... hubby came home from work and asked if I did anything today as he was laughing watching me at my computer LOL

 

[missy1974]

http://fox6now.com/2016/01/07/febru...a-halbach-takes-the-stand-in-the-avery-trial/

a video with TH's sister on the stand explaining where the lanyard came from.... the evidence key now attached to the other end of the lanyard, and she is touching it. I guess it wasn't a big deal now.

If she actually used that lanyard, I find it so very hard to believe they didn't find her DNA on the clasp or the key?