The Key: Planted or Not? Impact?

New Posts

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.
 
missy1974 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Snipped for space/focus: Nope, it's not remotely logical. Another reason I believe it was planted.
 
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
 
missy1974 said:
now that I have figured out how to post a picture.... lol
View 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?
Click to expand...

I see the car key. But where the heck is the house key?
 
DexterMorgan said:
I see the car key. But where the heck is the house key?
Click to expand...

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.
 
MaxManning said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

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.

MaxManning said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Sleuther87 said:
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.
Click to expand...


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 ?
 
Sleuther87 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 .
 
Sleuther87 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MaxManning said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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 ?
Click to expand...

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.


MaxManning said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

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.
 
It's HIGHLY relevant that they did a "bad job" back then, IMO.
 
MaxManning said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

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 ________.
 
Tawny said:
Do you deny that Manitowoc County officers were on that property investigating? I'm confused.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Sleuther87 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what your prior statement has to do with whether they investigated all available leads.
 
Tawny said:
I don't understand what your prior statement has to do with whether they investigated all available leads.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean. You'll have to be a bit more specific.

Anyway, I'd like to go back to my original point:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Trying to look at both sides once again here. Is it possible that SA did do this and put the key in his pants pocket and forgot about it. Maybe he washed the pants or it fell in the washer or something. Or maybe he did go ahead and wash it really good and figured it was clean so no one would know any better. Also, there is something to be said for having a souvenir. Maybe he kept it by the bed. I dont know.

I also have a problem with the key falling to the floor from the nightstand and where it landed. The holes are in the front of the nightstand and not on the sides or back. Wouldnt the key have fallen forward and landed in front of the night stand instead of back near the wall
 
Sleuther87 said:
Not sure what you mean. You'll have to be a bit more specific.

Anyway, I'd like to go back to my original point:
Click to expand...


The question is how might they ever obtain that evidence without some level of investigation?

For example, is it evidence that a key in plain sight not found during an original search, then found in a later search not enough to suggest that the key wasn't there before ?

You have officers that testify that they checked there before and it wasn't there before.

You have someone saying that they rustled a piece of furniture around and then the key fell into plain sight.

Am I open to that as convincing evidence that it might not have been there before and maybe someone dropped it there. Sure.

Am I open to it happening exactly as police described. sure.

What's wrong with asking ourselves why it's a valet key ? Most people use their master key. I do.

I'm ok with saying that it's odd that Avery has a cut on his hand that day, even though he works in a junkyard working with sharp materials all day long!

So why is it unreasonable to question why a officer saying the key wasn't there before , and suddenly it was ?

Or do we not trust that officer because it's impossible, since we have a picture with it there NOW. :)

I get your point, but things need investigation once there is question. right ?
 
TheDuchess said:
Trying to look at both sides once again here. Is it possible that SA did do this and put the key in his pants pocket and forgot about it. Maybe he washed the pants or it fell in the washer or something. Or maybe he did go ahead and wash it really good and figured it was clean so no one would know any better. Also, there is something to be said for having a souvenir. Maybe he kept it by the bed. I dont know.

I also have a problem with the key falling to the floor from the nightstand and where it landed. The holes are in the front of the nightstand and not on the sides or back. Wouldnt the key have fallen forward and landed in front of the night stand instead of back near the wall
Click to expand...

I agree, we just don't know how it was manipulated. Like did they turn it sideways ?

Also, I believe that they suggest it fell out of a book. meaning it was hidden between the pages of a book. So that is why it wasn't visible, even when in the nightstand.

I find both plausible. But where I differ, is that I believe it's fair to suggest that it was planted and investigate via asking more questions. Why is it a valet key ? now that becomes another good question.

I can think of plausible reasons for it to be the key she used. I can also think of plausible reasons as to why someone without the master key would plant the valet key. So why not investigate that aspect ?

right ? Problem is, do we think the police , if they planted this key are interested in investigating that ?

of course not. Thus the dilemna in believing the evidence.

I'm not sold on any planting, but I get the point of why people are questioning it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 191 more.
Total: 3,690 (members: 192, guests: 3,498)

Online statistics

Members online
192
Guests online
3,498
Total visitors
3,690
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,216
Messages
17,965,285
Members
228,722
Latest member
brew23p
Back
Top