I first read this back in January, and have read through it a couple of times since. Quite clearly, it is written from the perspective of someone that like myself, has an opinion on this case. I agree with some of it, but on the whole, it is stating what is known from other sources and layering some personal viewpoints, across. (Very much like we are doing here.)
Interestingly, there is a paragraph which actually shows that John Ferak missed a huge piece of the backdrop to Avery's defence. He writes:
'Lenk and Colborn did not realize their recurring presence at the Avery crime scene would prompt Avery's lawyers, Buting and Strang, to spin a courtroom narrative accusing them of planting blood and manufacturing false evidence, national experts said.'
Lenk & Colburn's presence did not prompt Buting & Strang to spin the framing narrative. Avery did. From his very first interviews on the TV and up in Crivitz, he was saying that he was being set up. This was before any evidence was discovered and actually, before Buting & Strang were appointed. So now, we have a high profile suspect in a case who has already been telling LE & the TV he is being set up. What other narrative were they going to spin?
I will answer your other posts here too.
Posted by CoolJ - BIBBM: I asked you those two questions because they are relevant to your post. If you don't understand the fundamentals of why Colbourn's integrity is in question, then I understand somewhat why you would have the viewpoint you do...An unfair suggestion. I know what the programme makers are getting at with Colborn, and it is misleading to say the least. Lack of understanding the fundamentals of this case ala Dan O'Donnell. Ask any of the other Sleuthers who also have differing opinions to me about my understanding of this case. They would disagree with you. They certainly would not suggest I lack an understanding of the fundamentals because of a difference of a opinion.
Posted by CoolJ - BIBBM
The car, the key and the bullet. Is that not the evidence in question? Thanks to Limaes for answering, you could have made your original question include these, as well as the Blood, the Bones, the DNA, TH's personal possessions found in his burn pit, the eye witnesses to the bonfire, the phone calls, the discrepancies in statements, the garage cleaning, Avery's lies about his activities that day, the discovery that he finished work early that day for the first time ever, that Teresa never made or received a call after he said she left the property, that Avery did not make any calls in the two hours that TH's phone was off, until he called it a 435, just after he had told his brother and Fabian that TH never turned up.... I could go on..
What does Pamela Burnstein have to do with this case? She owes him a heck of a lot more than a house IMO Well my friend, you talk about 'Fundamentals? Wow, if it were not for PB erroneously selecting him from a line up, then none of the fundamental building blocks for the framing narrative would have been formed! I included that question (which you did not answer BTW) as it sheds a light on the thought process of Avery. If he was confident of suing the State for untold millions, why did he need a rape victim who made a mistake in identifying him, to buy him a house?
Edited to correct italics.