Brendan Dassey's Habeas Corpus Petition Granted

[Jaiddie]

I think you hit the nail on the head. Have you read her portion of testimony at SA's trial? The Judge described it as more of a "turf war". He didn't say whether it was the right or wrong decision they made, however, he believed they were trying to prevent any further accusations of bias.

From reading her testimony she does come across as though she is 'getting back' at those who would not allow her to be involved in such a huge case that would have looked good on her CV. Simply put, in my opinion she was nursing a bruised ego.

Also in her testimony she, herself, says she doesn't attend every death.

From one of the links that was posted earlier, the Coroner/ ME only has to give authorisation to remove the remains. They don't have to do it personally.


Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

I don't think it was a bruised ego, so much as it was outrage that her office was shown such disrespect from the outset that she had to find out about the case from television, rather than (as the state statutes make clear is to be done) from a call informing her of the case. While the "conflict of interest" excuse sounds good on paper, I don't think it stands up to scrutiny in this instance because this was the ONLY time in that ENTIRE investigation that they chose to adhere, in any way, to that particular mandate, first of all. Second of all, if it truly was a "conflict of interest"( which is ridiculous as she was one of the few that had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the '85 case or those depositions), why didn't they then, at least, call in the Calomet Co. M.E., as the state mandated they do in such an instance? And as far as the links posted earlier in this thread show that she only had to authorize the removal of the remains, rather than doing it herself personally, she had already taken care of that too, as she had a forensic anthropologist along with her to make sure that the remains were removed PROPERLY by a qualified person and not damaged any further in the removal. None of this was allowed to happen, and I am sorry to say, that just screams to me that LE and officials did not WANT any "qualified" investigation to be carried out in regards to the remains and their discovery, for whatever reason. As someone else on here stated, I can think of no innocent reason as to why this part of the investigation went down that way, other than (as I stated before) for SINISTER reasons that there was fear as to what the discovery would show. I mean, come on, those remains should have been the MOST IMPORTANT discovery of the entire case as that was what they thought was the ACTUAL MISSING PERSON, a human being. The fact that this part of the investigation causes such outrage and astonishment with myself, and many others, comes from the fact that they did not ever even TRY to conduct this properly from ANY county. It was like they were in such an extreme hurry to get those remains off-site that they just LITERALLY shoveled her up (with the help of a BACKHOE, no less) and didn't care about what further damage they may have been doing to the remains. THIS is where my certainty truly started about a set-up, rather than the documentary leading me there because I can truly find no REASONABLE explanation about why this part of the investigation was allowed to be carried out in such a way. All JMO, of course. :shame:

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Hopefully after a nice break from my normal job I'll be refreshed and ready to do some research on this.

In the mean time I'll be using my body to get some work done at the ranch.

That doesn't sound like a vacation to me...Don't work too hard....Try to spend some time at least enjoying yourself.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

I think you hit the nail on the head. Have you read her portion of testimony at SA's trial? The Judge described it as more of a "turf war". He didn't say whether it was the right or wrong decision they made, however, he believed they were trying to prevent any further accusations of bias.

From reading her testimony she does come across as though she is 'getting back' at those who would not allow her to be involved in such a huge case that would have looked good on her CV. Simply put, in my opinion she was nursing a bruised ego.

Also in her testimony she, herself, says she doesn't attend every death.

From one of the links that was posted earlier, the Coroner/ ME only has to give authorisation to remove the remains. They don't have to do it personally.


Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

I'm not sure not letting her onto the crime scene did this, IMHO I think it fueled the fire and speculation.

 

[Safeguard]

That doesn't sound like a vacation to me...Don't work too hard....Try to spend some time at least enjoying yourself.

BCA, I love your style!
As a person who spends a lot of time taking care of others, I can truly say, that working on something I enjoy, can be like a kind of "vacation". Hopefully RANCH finds working on his RANCH kinda enjoyable!

 

[missy1974]

I don't think it was a bruised ego, so much as it was outrage that her office was shown such disrespect from the outset that she had to find out about the case from television, rather than (as the state statutes make clear is to be done) from a call informing her of the case. While the "conflict of interest" excuse sounds good on paper, I don't think it stands up to scrutiny in this instance because this was the ONLY time in that ENTIRE investigation that they chose to adhere, in any way, to that particular mandate, first of all. Second of all, if it truly was a "conflict of interest"( which is ridiculous as she was one of the few that had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the '85 case or those depositions), why didn't they then, at least, call in the Calomet Co. M.E., as the state mandated they do in such an instance? And as far as the links posted earlier in this thread show that she only had to authorize the removal of the remains, rather than doing it herself personally, she had already taken care of that too, as she had a forensic anthropologist along with her to make sure that the remains were removed PROPERLY by a qualified person and not damaged any further in the removal. None of this was allowed to happen, and I am sorry to say, that just screams to me that LE and officials did not WANT any "qualified" investigation to be carried out in regards to the remains and their discovery, for whatever reason. As someone else on here stated, I can think of no innocent reason as to why this part of the investigation went down that way, other than (as I stated before) for SINISTER reasons that there was fear as to what the discovery would show. I mean, come on, those remains should have been the MOST IMPORTANT discovery of the entire case as that was what they thought was the ACTUAL MISSING PERSON, a human being. The fact that this part of the investigation causes such outrage and astonishment with myself, and many others, comes from the fact that they did not ever even TRY to conduct this properly from ANY county. It was like they were in such an extreme hurry to get those remains off-site that they just LITERALLY shoveled her up (with the help of a BACKHOE, no less) and didn't care about what further damage they may have been doing to the remains. THIS is where my certainty truly started about a set-up, rather than the documentary leading me there because I can truly find no REASONABLE explanation about why this part of the investigation was allowed to be carried out in such a way. All JMO, of course. :shame:

clearly it was the key that was the most important piece of evidence.... remember how they stopped everything and took photo's before doing anything else. Nope, don't wanna take photo's of the remains of the victim, that isn't important at all.

jmo

 

[Limaes]

I don't think it was a bruised ego, so much as it was outrage that her office was shown such disrespect from the outset that she had to find out about the case from television, rather than (as the state statutes make clear is to be done) from a call informing her of the case. While the "conflict of interest" excuse sounds good on paper, I don't think it stands up to scrutiny in this instance because this was the ONLY time in that ENTIRE investigation that they chose to adhere, in any way, to that particular mandate, first of all. Second of all, if it truly was a "conflict of interest"( which is ridiculous as she was one of the few that had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the '85 case or those depositions), why didn't they then, at least, call in the Calomet Co. M.E., as the state mandated they do in such an instance? And as far as the links posted earlier in this thread show that she only had to authorize the removal of the remains, rather than doing it herself personally, she had already taken care of that too, as she had a forensic anthropologist along with her to make sure that the remains were removed PROPERLY by a qualified person and not damaged any further in the removal. None of this was allowed to happen, and I am sorry to say, that just screams to me that LE and officials did not WANT any "qualified" investigation to be carried out in regards to the remains and their discovery, for whatever reason. As someone else on here stated, I can think of no innocent reason as to why this part of the investigation went down that way, other than (as I stated before) for SINISTER reasons that there was fear as to what the discovery would show. I mean, come on, those remains should have been the MOST IMPORTANT discovery of the entire case as that was what they thought was the ACTUAL MISSING PERSON, a human being. The fact that this part of the investigation causes such outrage and astonishment with myself, and many others, comes from the fact that they did not ever even TRY to conduct this properly from ANY county. It was like they were in such an extreme hurry to get those remains off-site that they just LITERALLY shoveled her up (with the help of a BACKHOE, no less) and didn't care about what further damage they may have been doing to the remains. THIS is where my certainty truly started about a set-up, rather than the documentary leading me there because I can truly find no REASONABLE explanation about why this part of the investigation was allowed to be carried out in such a way. All JMO, of course. :shame:

I get the feeling that there were other issues going on prior to this awful thing happened.

Calumet County had taken over the Investigation before her remains were found, even before Fassbender became involved. Therefore, if it was now under CC's control, why would they bring the coroner from MC in? If the DA was happy to turn it over to another County, why is the Coroner having a problem? Why was she the only official to try to push her way in?

Do you know with absolute certainty that the M.E from CC was not notified?

Fassbender, IIRC, was unaware that Lenk & Colborn had recently been deposed when he requested their help with the search for evidence. Trained personnel were in short supply.

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

 

[BigCityAccountant]

clearly it was the key that was the most important piece of evidence.... remember how they stopped everything and took photo's before doing anything else. Nope, don't wanna take photo's of the remains of the victim, that isn't important at all.

jmo

Do we know at all if she was allowed on the crime scene of the other woman that was found shot around the same time? That would be telling...

 

[BigCityAccountant]

I get the feeling that there were other issues going on prior to this awful thing happened.

Calumet County had taken over the Investigation before her remains were found, even before Fassbender became involved. Therefore, if it was now under CC's control, why would they bring the coroner from MC in? If the DA was happy to turn it over to another County, why is the Coroner having a problem? Why was she the only official to try to push her way in?

Do you know with absolute certainty that the M.E from CC was not notified?

Fassbender, IIRC, was unaware that Lenk & Colborn had recently been deposed when he requested their help with the search for evidence. Trained personnel were in short supply.

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

...and again..therein lies the problem. It was Lenk's and Colburn's responsibility to notify Fassbender of the conflict of interest. I remember going to serve on a jury~~they asked if I had any conflict of interest. It was a woman suing the City of Chicago. At the time, I worked for a contractor that had contracts with the city. I was immediately dismissed and look how far out that connection to the city was...

 

[Limaes]

...and again..therein lies the problem. It was Lenk's and Colburn's responsibility to notify Fassbender of the conflict of interest. I remember going to serve on a jury~~they asked if I had any conflict of interest. It was a woman suing the City of Chicago. At the time, I worked for a contractor that had contracts with the city. I was immediately dismissed and look how far out that connection to the city was...

Perhaps because they were speaking for him rather than against him they didn't realise the repercussions of their involvement in the collection of evidence. Saying they made an error with their judgement is one thing. But saying that acted with malice and committed illegal acts is another. 10 years later and still no one can provide proof or even a logical theory pointing to MTSO planting evidence.

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

BCA, I love your style!
As a person who spends a lot of time taking care of others, I can truly say, that working on something I enjoy, can be like a kind of "vacation". Hopefully RANCH finds working on his RANCH kinda enjoyable!

Hard work to me, is extremely therapeutic😊
I enjoy a great workout & a good sweat😉 Hubby just put a heavy bag in our basement & it's nice to put on the gloves, and kick the hell out of it a couple of days a week❤
That's just me though😉

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

Well of course there is no "concrete evidence" because nobody looked for any. But no one knows where TH was killed, or how. (except her killer, of course). Do you know?
If you can't prove where she was killed and how she was killed, how can you be so certain you know who killed her?

A lot of top notch professionals believe, (obviously), someone other than SA killed her. How do you explain that? ( Are they all just not seeing this case with your level of sophistication?) Here's what Steve Moore had to say after learning about the various places TH burned remains were located:

bbm

"INVESTIGATOR'S NOTES:

Scott Tadych had access to BB2
Tadych and his girlfriend's son Bobby Dassey (who live in the same house) go hunting at the same time on the same day, and don't go together?
Tadych and Bobby Dassey are each others' alibi witnesses?
Start looking at Scott Tadych.


HOW THE NEEDLE HAS MOVED

Ultimately, I now think that while Steven Avery remains a suspect, I wouldn't put him at or near the top of my list I still want to know how Ryan Hillegas was able to hack into Teresa Halbach's voicemail. It smacks of an obsessed boyfriend who could not let go of a girlfriend who broke up with him. What better way for a stalker to monitor his victim then to be able to see who's calling her and listen to every voicemail left for her? That would be 'stalker gold.'

Another suspect high on the list (besides Hillegas or Bloedorn) is the person who was obsessively calling Halbach. Obviously, the film-makers are holding that information for a more dramatic reveal. I wonder if it's Hillegas.

And now, finally, I have to add two names to the list of potential suspects: Scott Tadych and Bobby Dassey. I'm not accusing them, but neither am I sure that either one were properly investigated by either Manitowoc or Calumet County Sheriff's Offices. Frankly, I'm beginning to think that nobody was properly investigated in this case.


And that last bolded stament is the crux of the problem, imo.
http://www.gmancasefile.com/moore-to-the-story.html

Now I am off to investigate Peter Sutcliffe! ( I have heard of the Yorkshire Ripper, but have not not done a *Deep Dive*).

Hops on pogo stick, over to Peter's page*
🙄

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Perhaps because they were speaking for him rather than against him they didn't realise the repercussions of their involvement in the collection of evidence. Saying they made an error with their judgement is one thing. But saying that acted with malice and committed illegal acts is another. 10 years later and still no one can provide proof or even a logical theory pointing to MTSO planting evidence.

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh: Yep, they were speaking on behalf of the one they truly loved most...You made my day!

 

[Jaiddie]

Perhaps because they were speaking for him rather than against him they didn't realise the repercussions of their involvement in the collection of evidence. Saying they made an error with their judgement is one thing. But saying that acted with malice and committed illegal acts is another. 10 years later and still no one can provide proof or even a logical theory pointing to MTSO planting evidence.

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

An error in judgement could be considered reasonable, I can agree (barely, as it is fairly illogical to think that Lenk and Colburn, two men whom had sat through grueling depositions only weeks before with SA present and watching it all happen) if that had been the only instance of questionable conduct by LE in that investigation. And here is another part that I seriously don't understand when I see some people wanting to see "proof of planting". What, exactly, would that "proof" have to entail for there to be recognition that the majority of "evidence" found against SA is questionable (actually, I will change that to ALL of the "evidence") and makes one think that this is a set-up? Documentation of planting? Well, we have that in several places. SA being filed as suspect in a homicide only an hour and a half after TH is reported missing, the RAV4 being "found" on 11/5 by searchers and yet is documented as being seized on 11/3 (coincidentally on the same date as Colburn's mysterious dispatch call), items taken from TH residence (toothbrush and vibrator in maroon case) also ending up being documented as being also taken from SA's property. The list goes on too much for me to list here...yet somehow we are to believe that these are all just typos and inexperience. I don't understand what "proof" is expected here. They couldn't even photograph the remains properly, do people really expect that LE would have photographed or videoed themselves setting this up, because it really does sound like that is what it would take for some to believe that LE weren't on the up and up with regards to that investigation. JMO Edit: to clarify JMO.

 

[Madeleine74]

Perhaps because they were speaking for him rather than against him they didn't realise the repercussions of their involvement in the collection of evidence. Saying they made an error with their judgement is one thing. But saying that acted with malice and committed illegal acts is another. 10 years later and still no one can provide proof or even a logical theory pointing to MTSO planting evidence.

I think Zellner is expecting to be the one to provide proof (if proof exists).

 

[IDK]

An error in judgement could be considered reasonable, I can agree (barely, as it is fairly illogical to think that Lenk and Colburn, two men whom had sat through grueling depositions only weeks before with SA present and watching it all happen) if that had been the only instance of questionable conduct by LE in that investigation. And here is another part that I seriously don't understand when I see some people wanting to see "proof of planting". What, exactly, would that "proof" have to entail for there to be recognition that the majority of "evidence" found against SA is questionable (actually, I will change that to ALL of the "evidence") and makes one think that this is a set-up? Documentation of planting? Well, we have that in several places. SA being filed as suspect in a homicide only an hour and a half after TH is reported missing, the RAV4 being "found" on 11/5 by searchers and yet is documented as being seized on 11/3 (coincidentally on the same date as Colburn's mysterious dispatch call), items taken from TH residence (toothbrush and vibrator in maroon case) also ending up being documented as being also taken from SA's property. The list goes on too much for me to list here...yet somehow we are to believe that these are all just typos and inexperience. I don't understand what "proof" is expected here. They couldn't even photograph the remains properly, do people really expect that LE would have photographed or videoed themselves setting this up, because it really does sound like that is what it would take for some to believe that LE weren't on the up and up with regards to that investigation. JMO Edit: to clarify JMO.

Wow, Jaiddie, you hit the ball out of the park and I agree with every single thing you said here.

 

[Safeguard]

I think Zellner is expecting to be the one to provide proof (if proof exists).

She will, and it does!

 

[missy1974]

...and again..therein lies the problem. It was Lenk's and Colburn's responsibility to notify Fassbender of the conflict of interest. I remember going to serve on a jury~~they asked if I had any conflict of interest. It was a woman suing the City of Chicago. At the time, I worked for a contractor that had contracts with the city. I was immediately dismissed and look how far out that connection to the city was...

good point BCA.

And if Fassbender/Wiegert or anyone else didn't know there was any sort of conflict.... why did MTSO (Colborn and Lenk specifically) need to have a babysitter with them at all times? And why would Kratz need to be on the scene on the 5th and named special prosecutor almost immediately? And wasn't there a meeting on the Avery property almost immediately between some of the investigators and prosecutors, basically when they decided that it WAS a conflict of interest and CASO would take over. I find it hard to believe that they didn't discuss what that conflict was, and if a lead investigator didn't know or understand the dynamics, he is not a good investigator IMO

 

[Safeguard]

good point BCA.

And if Fassbender/Wiegert or anyone else didn't know there was any sort of conflict.... why did MTSO (Colborn and Lenk specifically) need to have a babysitter with them at all times? And why would Kratz need to be on the scene on the 5th and named special prosecutor almost immediately? And wasn't there a meeting on the Avery property almost immediately between some of the investigators and prosecutors, basically when they decided that it WAS a conflict of interest and CASO would take over. I find it hard to believe that they didn't discuss what that conflict was, and if a lead investigator didn't know or understand the dynamics, he is not a good investigator IMO

bbm

And if I may add, Why did the RAV key, mysteriously present itself, on the only day a green CC officer, who testified that he was not aware that he had to "Babysit" Lenk & Colborn, was supposedly supervising those two?

 

[Safeguard]

Perhaps because they were speaking for him rather than against him they didn't realise the repercussions of their involvement in the collection of evidence. Saying they made an error with their judgement is one thing. But saying that acted with malice and committed illegal acts is another. 10 years later and still no one can provide proof or even a logical theory pointing to MTSO planting evidence.

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

bbm
No one was willing & able to professionally present proof until now, but it's still plain as day, and there's a very obvious reason why they planted evidence. No logical theory pointing to MTSO? Yes. Actually there is. But you know that.

 

[Madeleine74]

How long will it take to test and get results back? Ready to see the results!