The Key: Planted or Not? Impact?

[Madeleine74]

Can the key be identified as having belonged to TH and used by TH?

Can anyone identify where that key was normally kept by TH (in her purse, in her house, in her car somewhere)?

Did anyone else besides TH normally have access to that key?

Did anyone else besides TH ever have access to that key and use it? (roommate, boyfriend, family member?)

Did TH use any other car key instead of this one? If yes, where is that key? If no, what happened to her original RAV4 key?

Those would be my starting questions before I'd go far into the planting allegation.

 

[Tawny]

Colborn's ambiguity about how it "fell out" is a red flag for me. Did it fall out when you shook the cabinet or when you rifled through a book? I feel like you would need to be very specific especially if you're part of the force that isn't supposed to be there. He is never specific about anything and I find that worthy of eyebrow raising.

 

[MaxManning]

Maybe in another decade colburn will write a report that he found the valet key in the glovebox while the rav4 was at the crimelab, after the real key somehow gets discovered.

Things happen like that, ya know ?

 

[Tawny]

Can the key be identified as having belonged to TH and used by TH?

Can anyone identify where that key was normally kept by TH (in her purse, in her house, in her car somewhere)?

Did anyone else besides TH normally have access to that key?

Did anyone else besides TH ever have access to that key and use it? (roommate, boyfriend, family member?)

Did TH use any other car key instead of this one? If yes, where is that key? If no, what happened to her original RAV4 key?

Those would be my starting questions before I'd go far into the planting allegation.

I've wondered about ALL of these questions.

 

[Sleuther87]

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.

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

It's perfectly reasonable to question it, and I wouldn't fault anyone that dismissed the key because they thought it too questionable.

My main issue is with people who then extrapolate this to say "If they can plant the key then how do we know they didn't plant X, Y, and Z also?" when there's nothing even close to proof that the key was actually planted in the first place.

 

[MaxManning]

Can the key be identified as having belonged to TH and used by TH?

Can anyone identify where that key was normally kept by TH (in her purse, in her house, in her car somewhere)?

Did anyone else besides TH normally have access to that key?

Did anyone else besides TH ever have access to that key and use it? (roommate, boyfriend, family member?)

Did TH use any other car key instead of this one? If yes, where is that key? If no, what happened to her original RAV4 key?

Those would be my starting questions before I'd go far into the planting allegation.

Correct. So who is going to do that investigation ?

hmmmm let me see, who might want to do that investigation?

Oh, i see, if those questions never get answered, then there can never be an allegation. I see, makes sense now.

So we might as well not ask them, right ?

 

[Tawny]

It's perfectly reasonable to question it, and I wouldn't fault anyone that dismissed the key because they thought it too questionable.

My main issue is with people who then extrapolate this to say "If they can plant the key then how do we know they didn't plant X, Y, and Z also?" when there's nothing even close to proof that the key was actually planted in the first place.

No. There is... reasonable. doubt.

 

[MaxManning]

It's perfectly reasonable to question it, and I wouldn't fault anyone that dismissed the key because they thought it too questionable.

My main issue is with people who then extrapolate this to say "If they can plant the key then how do we know they didn't plant X, Y, and Z also?" when there's nothing even close to proof that the key was actually planted in the first place.

Agreed. But we are still on the point of how can the key ever be proven as planted, if there is no mechanism that facilitates investigating it.

The police are going to investigates themselves?

Look what's going on with police agencies investigating themselves and their own employees nowadays. Are we saying we are surprised when they come back and say "um, we don't see that we did anything wrong"

Then.... a higher agency steps in and investigates, and suddenly, we hear a different story. or we see a video to all gasp at.

Oh, ok, maybe this was a little unfair.

Happens all the time.

Why do you think they removed themselves as lead to this case ? To give that appearance of being fair, yet they are the ones checking out the trailer and finding that key ?

sure, people will be suspicious. why is that a surprise ?

 

[Madeleine74]

Correct. So who is going to do that investigation ?

hmmmm let me see, who might want to do that investigation?

Oh, i see, if those questions never get answered, then there can never be an allegation. I see, makes sense now.

So we might as well not ask them, right ?

You're assuming no one asked those questions during the course of the investigation. I don't know that and I'm not going to assume no one asked some or all of those very questions.

 

[MaxManning]

You're assuming no one asked those questions during the course of the investigation. I don't know that and I'm not going to assume no one asked some or all of those very questions.

Are you assuming they did ? I just am saying I want the answers to those questions and if I don't see them, sure... I am suspicious.

I don't know alot of things about this case. No one here has even seen the trial transcripts.

So if people are saying they want to know about the key, because they suspect something. -- why is anyone saying that's not a good question to ask ?

No one here is saying they know anything. But the questions you are posing, are as if we should ignore it because we have no evidence.

Show the investigation, and everyone is satisfied.

We don't see it. In the rape conviction, they had the evidence from other law enforcement and discarded it. So why shouldn't we be suspicious ?

revolving conversation here. It doesn't end by you saying we are assuming the questions weren't asked. It ends with you just accepting we have legitimate questions and we all wait for answers.

 

[Sleuther87]

No. There is... reasonable. doubt.

There is reasonable doubt that the key wasn't planted, but nowhere near anything concerning proof.

There isn't reasonable doubt that a man whose:

blood (with no EDTA found in it) is in TH's car along with her blood
bedroom had TH's key
gun matches up to the type of bullet with TH's DNA on it
his DNA on her hood latch, his car on his property
firepit contains the bones of TH when he had a bonfire capable of burning a human (no easy task) that night, with forensic anthropologists who worked on the scene stating they believe it happened there.
the last known person to see TH alive after specifically requesting her and dialed *67 twice, but not after her phone was turned off
etc. etc. etc.

didn't murder TH all because there's reasonable doubt about a key.


(note: I'm not even including his past crimes, Brendan's testimony, and other evidence that wasn't admissable.)

 

[Madeleine74]

We know 100% for sure TH was at the Avery Salvage yard from about 2:40pm on. We know 100% for sure TH had 2 appointments prior to arriving at Avery's. We know 100% for sure no one ever heard from TH again after 2:40pm, outside of her killer(s). We know 100% for sure TH's body was burned and her bones further reduced in that fire pit at SA's house. We know 100% for sure TH gave SA a receipt, an Auto Trader Magazine, and took pictures. We know 100% for sure items belonging to TH were found burned in the burn barrel at SA's.

Now where exactly does TH's roommate fit into this scenario? Because I'm not seeing it. Police could have casually asked the roommate (Scott?) and whoever else, when was the last time they saw TH, when was the last time they spoke to her, if they were at work or at home when either of them may have spoken to her or last saw her. In other words, police could have ferreted out information that would be at least part of an alibi without those guys even realizing. The 2 guys could have thought it was a casual chat with police. Police were likely paying attention to everything told to them by whoever they talked to.

 

[MaxManning]

There is reasonable doubt that the key wasn't planted, but nowhere near anything concerning proof.

There isn't reasonable doubt that a man whose:

blood (with no EDTA found in it) is in TH's car along with her blood
bedroom had TH's key
gun matches up to the type of bullet with TH's DNA on it
his DNA on her hood latch, his car on his property
firepit contains the bones of TH when he had a bonfire capable of burning a human (no easy task) that night, with forensic anthropologists who worked on the scene stating they believe it happened there.
the last known person to see TH alive after specifically requesting her and dialed *67 twice, but not after her phone was turned off
etc. etc. etc.

didn't murder TH all because there's reasonable doubt about a key.


(note: I'm not even including his past crimes, Brendan's testimony, and other evidence that wasn't admissable.)

There wasn't any reasonable doubt at the rape conviction trial that there was another suspect introduced by another law enforcement body, that eventually ended up being the proven rapist.

Yet... a little reasonable investigation beyond the guy they wanted to convict, might have yielded some possibly ?


Ya know, like that guy needing to give an alibi ?

You are using the lack of presence of evidence , to mean that proper investigation where there is question couldn't yield evidence.


Lastly , respectfully

please look into the EDTA test, because it's not a conclusive test of the absence of EDTA. Cross examination is clear in this regard.
please look into the hood latch testimony, because we have since learned that the guy who found the dna evidence on the hood latch, was wearing the same gloves he was using in rummaging through the avery car.
please read the cross-examination of the forensic anthropologist that she agrees where the bones were found - not all in one spot - suggest that they could have been moved.

I have had many of these same misconceptions. I have been corrected, and verified them too.

Please be objective as well and at least admit if you have misread them as well - as I believe you have in these cases.

 

[Tawny]

There is reasonable doubt that the key wasn't planted, but nowhere near anything concerning proof.

There isn't reasonable doubt that a man whose:

blood (with no EDTA found in it) is in TH's car along with her blood
bedroom had TH's key
gun matches up to the type of bullet with TH's DNA on it
his DNA on her hood latch, his car on his property
firepit contains the bones of TH when he had a bonfire capable of burning a human (no easy task) that night, with forensic anthropologists who worked on the scene stating they believe it happened there.
the last known person to see TH alive after specifically requesting her and dialed *67 twice, but not after her phone was turned off
etc. etc. etc.

didn't murder TH all because there's reasonable doubt about a key.


(note: I'm not even including his past crimes, Brendan's testimony, and other evidence that wasn't admissable.)

This thread is about the key. There is reasonable doubt that the key was there when the first couple of searches happened, especially since another officer testified that it wasn't.

 

[Sleuther87]

This thread is about the key. There is reasonable doubt that the key was there when the first couple of searches happened, especially since another officer testified that it wasn't.

My post was about the key and its overall importance.

Idk why I have to repeat myself, but I said:

It's perfectly reasonable to question it, and I wouldn't fault anyone that dismissed the key because they thought it too questionable.

My main issue is with people who then extrapolate this to say "If they can plant the key then how do we know they didn't plant X, Y, and Z also?" when there's nothing even close to proof that the key was actually planted in the first place.​

and you responded:

No. There is... reasonable. doubt.
​

implying that if there's reasonable doubt about a key it means there's reasonable doubt about the whole trial. I disagree with that entirely.

 

[Sleuther87]

Regarding Lenk and Colborn's involvement in 1995 phone call:

- Colborn testified he was a corrections officer at the Manitowoc County jail in the mid-1990s, when he got a call from an officer from another agency saying someone in their custody may have committed an assault in Manitowoc County. Colborn said he transferred the call to a detective since he wasn't yet a sworn deputy. Avery wasn't mentioned.


-Lt. James Lenk, the second deputy accused by Avery's attorneys, took Colborn's statement on the call when Colborn prepared it in 2003. He testified the wrongful-conviction suit caused him no embarrassment or angst and he did not plant evidence.

http://lacrossetribune.com/breaking...cle_d8c53815-b0a1-57e6-927a-521f7d2d52c6.html

 

[missy1974]

Kratz himself said during the closing arguments "so what if the key was planted", didn't he? What prosecutor says that? He must have thought there had to be some reasonable doubt there.

Hypothetically, if there is a group of us in a room with a bowl of various colored candies with a note saying "pls don't eat", later when it is found that someone ate all the red and blue one's and there is 1 person in that room that has a visibly red tongue but denies they ate ANY candy, is it reasonable to believe that they are also lying and ate the blue one's too?

I think if I have reasonable doubt about a piece of evidence, ie the key, it is not unreasonable that I would have doubts about any other piece of evidence, especially any evidence involving the same officers.

 

[Madeleine74]

later when it is found that someone ate all the red and blue one's and there is 1 person in that room that has a visibly red tongue

So in this case where is the proof someone ate all the red and blue candies....errrr.... planted TH's car key in SA's bedroom? And who has the red tongue to prove it ... errr...who did it and where is the evidence so that one can make a reasonable inference that person is the one who planted the key (if it was planted)?

And to the issue, "was the key planted?" people have feelings like it was, suspicions that it could have been based on thinking Lenk had a vendetta against SA and was out to get him no matter what because Lenk didn't take seriously a call years before about another suspect in a rape case in which SA had been convicted. And because Lenk was called as one of many witnesses in a civil suit against the Sheriff's Dept. Lenk wasn 't personally on the hook to pay $$$$, he was one of the witnesses called. But never mind that, Lenk must have a vendetta that runs so deep that he is willing to risk his own hide, his job, his family, his freedom, to plant a key in SA's bedroom. Or...maybe it was Calhoun... or maybe one of SA's brothers or nephews. Anyone but Steve Avery.

 

[missy1974]

It's about reasonable doubt. And yep, I have reasonable doubt about the key.
Myself personally, I think the lawsuit was just one piece of it. I think it was Stang at some point in the documentary that said something like, the only thing that made sense to him was that LE felt so strongly that SA could have done it, the only reason to plant evidence would be to "make sure" he was charged and convicted. That makes sense to me.

 

[MaxManning]

So in this case where is the proof someone ate all the red and blue candies....errrr.... planted TH's car key in SA's bedroom? And who has the red tongue to prove it ... errr...who did it and where is the evidence so that one can make a reasonable inference that person is the one who planted the key (if it was planted)?

And to the issue, "was the key planted?" people have feelings like it was, suspicions that it could have been based on thinking Lenk had a vendetta against SA and was out to get him no matter what because Lenk didn't take seriously a call years before about another suspect in a rape case in which SA had been convicted. And because Lenk was called as one of many witnesses in a civil suit against the Sheriff's Dept. Lenk wasn 't personally on the hook to pay $$$$, he was one of the witnesses called.

An officer states the key wasn't present previously in that same location. Not that he didn't see it, but that the same location didn't have a key.

So if you don't investigate that, how would you ever find further evidence that the key was planted ?

Circular argument again. Bottom line is that if someone who searched the room, says the item wasn't there before, but while lenk and colburn visited it appeared in that spot -- why is unreasonable to say we cannot be sure that they put it there or not ?

The officer has reasonable doubt as to how it got there himself. He cannot say where it came from explicitly.

Surely you see the difference between if the key had been found on the first search in that location and it being found later in a location that was previously noted to have no key, right ?

If I was looking for my keys in my house and I specifically remembered looking at the table for my keys, and then later someone comes in and goes -- hey, your keys are on the table.

I'm going to FIRST ask that person if they put that key there. Why ? because I obviously I have reasonable doubt that they were there all along and I just didn't see them, even though I looked there specifically.

That's called reasonable doubt. exactly what it is. If there was no reason, I'd just accept that they were always there.

Arguing this point is funny. I don't get how someone can be so defiant about something so obvious.

So one possibility is that the key fell from somewhere else ?

Lenk or the nightstand ? Is there some kind of formula that says that one or the other is impossible ? nope.

So now we have reason to question the origins. Perfectly plausible.

If it fell from the nightstand, no big deal, right ?


But IF it fell from Lenk's hand, now that is a big friggin deal. right ? Lots of new questions after that one. right ?

So isn't it worth investigating ?