The Key: Planted or Not? Impact?

[ACJL]

No, not that one...it was in the Post Conviction relief Petition.

I've checked this

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Exhibit-85-Affidavit-of-Joshua-Radandt.pdf

and this:

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...4-Handwritten-Statement-of-Joshua-Radandt.pdf

They are both part of the Post-conviction relief.

He has been consistent about seeing a burn barrel fire on the 31st of October 2005. He doesn't want to change that, not even for Zellner. He says he was pressured to describe a larger fire, but he maintained he saw a burn barrel fire. He could not have seen a burnpit fire at the time he gives; 16:30h.

 

[missy1974]

I would sure like to know when they were pressuring Radandt into saying the fire was larger than it was... was it before they even investigated the burn pit? Was it before the 8th?

In regards to the "other keys"... IIRC she had a house key, garage key, studio key, school gym key... that were never recovered. Also, IIRC, she would usually have a purse, most purses have buttons, snaps, zippers, etc. Nothing relating to a purse was ever recovered. Or other keys.

 

[Limaes]

Just over a month after his arrest, SA says to the media:

"Who carries one key? That's what I can't figure out. The house key and all that. I have a hunch they put it there cause there's an extra set. Where's the other set?"

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Script-from-18Dec2005-News-Story-1.pdf

He has a "hunch" there's an extra set? I have a "hunch" that he knew there was an extra set because it was he who got rid of them. How else would he know about the "and all that"? A very incriminating statement imo.

 

[Karinna]

Just over a month after his arrest, SA says to the media:



He has a "hunch" there's an extra set? I have a "hunch" that he knew there was an extra set because it was he who got rid of them. How else would he know about the "and all that"? A very incriminating statement imo.

I don't think it's incriminating at all if he had seen TH with a bunch of keys on her in his previous dealings with her in regard to Auto trader photos of vehicles. It wasn't the first time she had been to ASY, so he could of recalled that information about her, and therefore his "hunch" about that IMO.

 

[Limaes]

He may have seen them before if her habit was to not leave them in the ignition while she took photos. Problem is, he never says he seen them, ever. Instead, he asks "who carries one key?"

 

[Karinna]

He may have seen them before if her habit was to not leave them in the ignition while she took photos. Problem is, he never says he seen them, ever. Instead, he asks "who carries one key?"

Well then that's a good question by him, because he makes a good point. As i stated earlier i don't personally know of anyone that carries just one key either. So his question makes sense.

 

[Karinna]

If the key found by LE in SA's trailer was her spare key, then how did Avery access TH's spare key? A spare key is a spare in case you lock yourself out of your vehicle or lose you main key that you use on a daily basis to drive your car. A spare key is one people usually leave at home just in case they need it, and not the key they would normally carry with them IMO.

 

[missy1974]

SA's "hunch" about another set of keys probably came from his lawyers and/or LE and/or family. LE was actively looking for her other keys. I recall reading somewhere that they took LOTS of keys from Avery Salvage yard, and IIRC they even tried some at the school where she coached volleyball.

SA may have been in jail, but he wasn't in a bubble (well... after LE told his lawyers where he was). To think that no one else would have wondered where her other keys were, or her purse, it's just not very logical IMO

 

[ACJL]

I would sure like to know when they were pressuring Radandt into saying the fire was larger than it was... was it before they even investigated the burn pit? Was it before the 8th? .

Radandt said it was "less than a week" after he talked to them on Saturday the 5th. The bones were found three days later in the burn pit, so it probably was after that that they asked him about the size again.

 

[missy1974]

Radandt said it was "less than a week" after he talked to them on Saturday the 5th. The bones were found three days later in the burn pit, so it probably was after that that they asked him about the size again.

yes, and then he says "later that week" they contacted him about searching the deer camp, he unlocked the doors and left, later had a conversation that LE would be collecting the contents of the burn barrel at a later time. LE did collect the burn barrels or contents on the 12th.

There is no information in the reports we have available about when he spoke to LE and felt like he wasn't saying what they wanted to hear. So I'm still left wondering when they asked him.

Can't blame the guy for not remembering the dates lol But it was all over the news, was SA already in jail when they asked him? was it within the first few days? Was it before remains were reported to be found? Was it after the remains were reported to have been found?

Just another question I hope to get the answer to some day ;-) Would be great if we had the DCI reports!!!

 

[ACJL]

"later that week"? It was Saturday... the last day of the week. There was no "later" during that week.

The cops knew there could've been a bonfire after they found the bones on Tuesday the 8th. It only makes sense for them to ask Radandt after they found the bones. The quote "less than a week" also seems to imply that. Are you suggesting they asked him about the size of the fire before the bones were found?

 

[missy1974]

In Radandt's affidavit... he pin points the 5th... then says "less than a week later" ... then says "later that week"... I'm guessing he is using the 5th as a reference? or later that week was after the less than a week later?

All I can tell from his affidavit is that the mention of feeling like he wasn't saying what they wanted to hear was sometime between the 7th and the 12th (and actually, I couldn't find what date they searched the deer camp, I could only find that they collected the burn barrel contents on the 12th... they may have been there the day before?)

He does say that LE told him that a scent dog tracked to the Kuss rd. cul-de-sac during the same conversation.... and that happened on the 7th, so it had to be after that. That's the best I can get from the records that we have available.

 

[ACJL]

The way I understand it he is using the 5th as a reference for "less than a week later", but he is using "less than a week later" as a reference for "later that week". It seems to be told in chronological order. The stuff described after "later that week" happened after the stuff described at "less than a week". There is also a "later that day", which seems to use "later that week" as a reference.

 

[missy1974]

The way I understand it he is using the 5th as a reference for "less than a week later", but he is using "less than a week later" as a reference for "later that week". It seems to be told in chronological order. The stuff described after "later that week" happened after the stuff described at "less than a week". There is also a "later that day", which seems to use "later that week" as a reference.

So if we put this all together... and with other information that we "know", I still don't know what day he was talking to LE, other than it was between the 7th (scent dogs) and 12th (burn barrel contents collected). It was "less than 1 week later" but before "later that week" LOL Would have been nice if he had related it to something else that was going on, like he did earlier in his affidavit when he said that there were news reports about her vehicle being found on the property. IIRC LE released the info on the 10th to the media about bones and teeth being found on the property, and SA had already been arrested, so was it before or after that?

The bones were found later in the day on the 8th, and I'm not sure when "human bones" were confirmed by Dr. Bennet (which is a whole other issue, IMO, since he identified an ilium bone as a human female, yet I don't see that an ilium bone was found in the burn pit... there was one in the quarry though).

Like I said... just something else I want to know

 

[ACJL]

So if we put this all together... and with other information that we "know", I still don't know what day he was talking to LE, other than it was between the 7th (scent dogs) and 12th (burn barrel contents collected). It was "less than 1 week later" but before "later that week" LOL Would have been nice if he had related it to something else that was going on, like he did earlier in his affidavit when he said that there were news reports about her vehicle being found on the property. IIRC LE released the info on the 10th to the media about bones and teeth being found on the property, and SA had already been arrested, so was it before or after that?

The bones were found later in the day on the 8th, and I'm not sure when "human bones" were confirmed by Dr. Bennet (which is a whole other issue, IMO, since he identified an ilium bone as a human female, yet I don't see that an ilium bone was found in the burn pit... there was one in the quarry though).

Like I said... just something else I want to know

Why would you want to know exactly? Just some personal curiosity?

If I remember correctly, Bennet never received any bone material from the quarry btw. But yea, that is a different matter.

 

[missy1974]

Why would you want to know exactly? Just some personal curiosity?

If I remember correctly, Bennet never received any bone material from the quarry btw. But yea, that is a different matter.

I guess personal curiosity? Lots of questions I would like answers to with this case!

As for Dr. Bennett, it was reported that he received some bones, and based on the characteristics of the "ilium bone" he determined it was an adult human female. Interestingly enough, Eisenberg, never mentions this bone, other than the iliac crest found in the quarry. And she actually used the facial bones and the elbow or radius bone to determine they were from an adult human female. Don't want to hijack the "key thread" with this though ;-)

 

[ACJL]

It could be interesting, so maybe discuss that in the bones topic someday ;-)

 

[Laura Mountford]

For me yes it does. Planted evidence is in and of itself reasonable doubt. It calls all other evidence into question because how can we know that hasn't been planted or tampered with as well.

It's also a hugely serious offence to plant evidence. Whoever planted it or is willing to shrug it off if it was should be fired immediately. It casts a huge shadow over ALL other evidence and can even throw out a case. That's not helping the family if the case is upturned is it? Whether SA is guilty or not, the police brushing off the idea of planted evidence is shocking and incredibly unprofessional.

 

[ACJL]

the police brushing off the idea of planted evidence is shocking and incredibly unprofessional.

Well they were the ones being accused of planting that evidence ever since the car was found. Of course they shrugged it off. They knew better.

 

[proudfootz]

It's also a hugely serious offence to plant evidence. Whoever planted it or is willing to shrug it off if it was should be fired immediately. It casts a huge shadow over ALL other evidence and can even throw out a case. That's not helping the family if the case is upturned is it? Whether SA is guilty or not, the police brushing off the idea of planted evidence is shocking and incredibly unprofessional.

It's certainly obvious to anyone with even a casual interest in current events that police are perfectly capable of lying or planting evidence. They are human beings, with all the frailties and flaws we are all heir to. Human beings wearing the badge have committed every crime known to us. Any number of videos available on YouTube is proof of that. It is undeniable.

The spokesperson for the officials in charge of the investigation were not there. They have no first hand knowledge of how this key entered the evidence stream. LE has a clear motive to lie in this matter, if they even know the truth. But the confident statements standing behind the integrity of their subordinates have not always borne out. This is an historical fact.

Maybe it really was there where cops would have to practically step over it to enter the bedroom. Or maybe it squirted out of a secret compartment in the side of a wooden bookcase when a frustrated honest cop shoved some soft *advertiser censored* magazines into the furniture. Or perhaps a law enforcement officer, out of misplaced zeal, found the key elsewhere and decided to place it there for some reason while honestly thinking there was 'no harm' in framing a guilty man. Or perhaps the LE placed the key there as part of a deliberate plan in collusion with one or more others to incriminate SA.

KK rhetorically admitted the key was planted, suggesting to the jury something along the lines 'even if the key was planted that does not bear on the other evidence'. You are correct: "It casts a huge shadow over ALL other evidence." Planted evidence gets out of the law enforcement screen, gets through the District Attorney's screen, and gets presented to the jury as fact and we should ignore it? Remember the jury stands in for us - the citizen 'peers' of the accused. How can we trust someone who may have lied to us? KK thinks dubious evidence entered by the prosecution isn't relevant to the state of their quality control. If the key was planted that is evidence of the state of the investigation. Was it honest?

Time and time again we have examples of ways the investigators in this case deviated from common sense protocols the prosecution crossed lines (to cite a couple, blocking Coroner Debra Kakatsch, or allowing officers from the most likely department to bear a grudge against SA to roam the search area). Sheer incompetence can't explain these. But if it can, that says something significant about the trustworthiness of the investigation as a whole.

Attempts to brush these considerations off are suspicious in themselves.