The Key: Planted or Not? Impact?

New Posts

ferretnurse said:
It's been over two years since I've posted, probably. I actually did the opposite as most people in this case, as I researched and read up on the case prior to watching the documentary. I'll start by saying I'm very pro cop. I used to be a correctional nurse, and I watched tons of inmates take advantage of the system, treat LE like crap, and complain about how unfair their sentences are. I went into the documentary fully expecting to hate Steven Avery and have no question of his guilt. I'm an animal lover, and the cat burning had me seeing red. (Yes, I admit to being someone who would lose their minds if someone harmed any of my animals!) I came out of the research and viewing of the show on the fence.

My problem is simple. The darn key. Kratz made some bs comment about the fact that even if you believe the key was planted, it shouldn't matter. (I don't remember the exact quote, but the gist.) He's wrong. As soon as you believe the key "may" have been planted, you begin to question what other evidence could be tampered with. That's my reasonable doubt. Sadly, SA may be guilty, I just don't know what we can trust from the poisoned evidence. This makes me sad and angry for Teresa's family.
Click to expand...

I think what they're trying to say is that even if the key was planted, SA's sweat is still under the hood of Halbachs SUV. It's a no win for SA, he became a killer.
 
http://fox6now.com/2016/01/07/march...erys-fingerprints-crime-lab-expert-testifies/
this is a video that shows testimony about the the key not being dusted for fingerprints.

at about the 9-10 second mark... the crime lab dude is actually handling evidence without a glove on his one hand, and there is another image later that shows handling of what looks like a vial of blood. Would they normally wear gloves in court when handling evidence???
 
missy1974 said:
http://fox6now.com/2016/01/07/march...erys-fingerprints-crime-lab-expert-testifies/
this is a video that shows testimony about the the key not being dusted for fingerprints.

at about the 9-10 second mark... the crime lab dude is actually handling evidence without a glove on his one hand, and there is another image later that shows handling of what looks like a vial of blood. Would they normally wear gloves in court when handling evidence???
Click to expand...

I have seen them put gloves on it court before handling evidence.So I will say yes it is normally done.
 
TheDuchess said:
To prove that I am indeed open to other ideas - perhaps SA left them in his pocket and the key went through the wash? I dunno.
Click to expand...

Do you suppose the key may have been in his pocket when he cleaned the floor with bleach? I'm not an expert by any means, but could the bleach removed the DNA? When he realized the key was in his pocket, he then took it out, causing his DNA to be the only DNA on the key.
 
MaxManning said:
Depends on if you believe the police planted the car and had the key all along, or if you believe they had access in the crime lab.

Another possibility is that a family member such as the brother had it, and gave it to police.

I am not saying that is something I find probable. But, I don't doubt that if a family member/friend had the key, and believed that avery was the killer.... might give that to police for that purpose.

It's out there, but it's plausible.

I can imagine a family member/friend who believed avery was the killer, could convince themselves that this was fair play. jmo

ends justifies the means - happens all the time, if we are willing to be honest
Click to expand...

If a family member ' had the key' how did they get it ? If a family member gave LE the key, then LE could have just said family member gave us the key and not ' plant it' in his room.

ETA Now that you mention it, I guess the key could have been ' planted' by a family member and not Lenk! I'm fairly convinced someone on the property is involved in the murder and his family probably could come in and out anytime during all the time the searches were going on . SA's out at work and a brother or bil slips in to use the bathroom, drops the key and walks away.
 
SCHMAE said:
If a family member ' had the key' how did they get it ? If a family member gave LE the key, then LE could have just said family member gave us the key and not ' plant it' in his room.

ETA Now that you mention it, I guess the key could have been ' planted' by a family member and not Lenk! I'm fairly convinced someone on the property is involved in the murder and his family probably could come in and out anytime during all the time the searches were going on . SA's out at work and a brother or bil slips in to use the bathroom, drops the key and walks away.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying that the family member got it from the crime scene. I'm just talking about a very normal situation of how the key is not in the car, and law enforcement could have had access to the key, and then plant it while never having entered the vehicle.


I say this because I myself have been in possession of family and friend's valet keys in the past or a secondary key when borrowing a car or when me being able to access the vehicle in a given time period is important. That's kind of what the valet key is for. It's not JUST used for valet.

In some cases I've even used a valet key when I lost my regular key. I typically don't keep my valet key in the car, even though it's the intended usage -- to give it to a valet. I keep it out and in my home as a way of me getting into my car if I locked myself out.


So, if a family member had that valet key for a similar purpose, and they felt avery was guilty, would they have a problem with law enforcement using it to plant evidence ?

If they convinced themselves that the ends justify the means ?

that's all. I personally don't think this happened. But do I see the emotions, motivation, and means that could lead to something like this happening. Sure.
 
MaxManning said:
I'm not saying that the family member got it from the crime scene. I'm just talking about a very normal situation of how the key is not in the car, and law enforcement could have had access to the key, and then plant it while never having entered the vehicle.


I say this because I myself have been in possession of family and friend's valet keys in the past or a secondary key when borrowing a car or when me being able to access the vehicle in a given time period is important. That's kind of what the valet key is for. It's not JUST used for valet.

In some cases I've even used a valet key when I lost my regular key. I typically don't keep my valet key in the car, even though it's the intended usage -- to give it to a valet. I keep it out and in my home as a way of me getting into my car if I locked myself out.


So, if a family member had that valet key for a similar purpose, and they felt avery was guilty, would they have a problem with law enforcement using it to plant evidence ?

If they convinced themselves that the ends justify the means ?

that's all. I personally don't think this happened. But do I see the emotions, motivation, and means that could lead to something like this happening. Sure.
Click to expand...

Oh , I'm sorry. You meant what if Teresa's family had given the key to LE , not one of Avery's family!
 
Madeleine74 said:
Saying they "could have" gotten her spare valet key (which just so happened to have the exact same fob on it that her sister testified she gave to her months before, and that TH used all the time) does not tell us how they got it, who they got it from, or when, or where. There needs to be some evidence to point to beyond "well they could'a").
Click to expand...

GigiG said:
Please, let's remember, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense.
Click to expand...

In general, yes the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

However, IMO when accusing someone of framing you, the burden is not on the accused to disprove it (that's basically impossible), but rather the accuser to present some compelling evidence they've been framed (if they want the accusation to be taken seriously). (Can a lawyer weigh in on this?)

Avery's defense presented some evidence that points to the possibility that Avery could have been framed, but IMO it wasn't very compelling and never amounted to more than that, and it seems like it wasn't compelling enough for the jury either.
 
Sleuther87 said:
Avery's defense presented some evidence that points to the possibility that Avery could have been framed, but IMO it wasn't very compelling and never amounted to more than that, and it seems like it wasn't compelling enough for the jury either.
Click to expand...

They were very restricted in what they could say in the courtroom regarding other possible leads.
 
Tawny said:
They were very restricted in what they could say in the courtroom regarding other possible leads.
Click to expand...

This is based on law and it's for a good reason. They could've said other stuff regarding other possible leads if they could've at least presented a motive for anyone else, and they couldn't.

What evidence did the defense actually have that they weren't able to present in the courtroom? Or are you just saying they would have been accusing other people of possibly doing it and basically slandering their name without that person being able to defend themself?
 
missy1974 said:
http://fox6now.com/2016/01/07/march...erys-fingerprints-crime-lab-expert-testifies/
this is a video that shows testimony about the the key not being dusted for fingerprints.
Click to expand...

Regarding not testing for prints on the key, here's a reason for that:

Ten years ago the methods they used of dusting for prints could destroy DNA evidence, so if an item was small it was typical to choose between dusting for prints or testing for DNA, but not trying to do both since they didn't want to dust for prints, find nothing, and then discover that that had destroyed the trace amounts of DNA: http://search.proquest.com/openview/39638ff63b1e24e0983240acd7ea214f/1?pq-origsite=gscholar
Click to expand...

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMur..._information_that_was_left_out_of_mam/cyu09uc
 
Sleuther87 said:
This is based on law and it's for a good reason. They could've said other stuff regarding other possible leads if they could've at least presented a motive for anyone else, and they couldn't.

What evidence did the defense actually have that they weren't able to present in the courtroom? Or are you just saying they would have been accusing other people of possibly doing it and basically slandering their name without that person being able to defend themself?
Click to expand...

How would I know the answer to this?
 
Sleuther87 said:
This is based on law and it's for a good reason. They could've said other stuff regarding other possible leads if they could've at least presented a motive for anyone else, and they couldn't.

What evidence did the defense actually have that they weren't able to present in the courtroom? Or are you just saying they would have been accusing other people of possibly doing it and basically slandering their name without that person being able to defend themself?
Click to expand...

Is it slandering the good name of Earl Avery to understand why he was driving a golf cart around shooting at rabbits with a rifle, and that golf cart ended up having a cadaver dog hit on it ?

I'm open to hearing why they excluded him, but certainly this is worth looking into and investigating.

I don't doubt there could be good reason. But if LE doesn't investigate. How exactly would there ever be evidence worthy of being accepted ?

If LE has reason to not want to investigate, is it crazy to think that the motive would be that they don't want that evidence because it doesn't support their narrative ? Or even implicates them in not following up on a logical lead.

That's my question in all this. Is law enforcement and the system above all reproach as to what a logical lead is? A lead that might reasonably result in evidence to support a different suspect.

We see a glowing example in the rape conviction of how LE was able to exclude the guy who we now know factually raped her, even though OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT told them they believed it was this guy.

If that wasn't fact. I likely would have a bit more faith in the system and the people investigating this case. ya know ?
 
We don't know how much others were or weren't investigated; to claim we do is foolish. We do know people from Avery's salvage yard were at least interviewed and had their DNA taken early on.

We also know Brendan Dassey was eventually charged because of further investigation into other leads.

Is it slandering the good name of Earl Avery to understand why he was driving a golf cart around shooting at rabbits with a rifle, and that golf cart ended up having a cadaver dog hit on it ?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the defense would have been allowed to state Earl Avery "was driving a golf cart around shooting at rabbits with a rifle, and that golf cart ended up having a cadaver dog hit on it" if that was a fact (they may have even done so).
 
Sleuther87 said:
We don't know how much others were or weren't investigated; to claim we do is foolish. We do know people from Avery's salvage yard were at least interviewed and had their DNA taken early on.

We also know Brendan Dassey was eventually charged because of further investigation into other leads.



I'm pretty sure the defense would have been allowed to state Earl Avery "was driving a golf cart around shooting at rabbits with a rifle, and that golf cart ended up having a cadaver dog hit on it" if that was a fact (they may have even done so).
Click to expand...

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 ?
 
now that I have figured out how to post a picture.... lol
key.jpg

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 74 more.
Total: 3,639 (members: 75, guests: 3,564)

Online statistics

Members online
75
Guests online
3,564
Total visitors
3,639
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,398
Messages
17,968,369
Members
228,767
Latest member
Mona Lisa
Back
Top