Colborn and Lenk... a couple of questions for experts

[Amber29]

the hood latch was also mentioned by the investigators first. I have been reading it all listening to it all. I suggest you do the same. GO listen to ever single one of BD's interviews starting with the very first recorded one in Nov 2005. Every single bit of information that was important for him to say it himself was told by the investigators. Even him telling them that he went to go get the mail became pulling out a letter from his box for SA. everything that kid was turned twisted and fed to him to fit the states theory of the crime.

Thanks I've done hours of reading and watching, I rarely would comment on something unless I have facts I'm already aware of. I stopped watching this documentary half way through to learn the facts before I finished it because I have no interest in only one side.

 

[ElleElle]

Something else that stood out to me was when the one officer called in to the dispatch center to get TH's license plate number and he described her vehicle. Well unless he was looking right at her vehicle how would he have known what kind it was? Im assuming they had put out a bulletin of some kind to look for it so maybe thats how but he said on the stand he never described the vehicle and they played the tape back for him and then his story changed.

:lol:

:deadhorse: This has been discussed ALOT. What irks me is Sgt. Colburn's reaction on the stand. As M-74 stated, "deer in the headlights" look and the deep gulps he takes.

 

[ElleElle]

the damage to her car was not done by transport. Here you can tell that wheel well is missing. *snip*
Also this next picture shows the damage to the car in the crime lab and the way her wheel well looked when she stood in front of her car for that picture is the well on the right.
*snip*

Maybe someone ran her off the road and "accidentally" injured her bad, and had to get rid of her.

BD or ST? IDK.

 

[amberjb4]

:lol:

:deadhorse: This has been discussed ALOT. What irks me is Sgt. Colburn's reaction on the stand. As M-74 stated, "deer in the headlights" look and the deep gulps he takes.

He definitely had a deer in the headlights look lol.

 

[ElleElle]

I actually explained this further awhile ago, if you read his testimony on redirect he explains himself. Someone commented that "sure after a 15min break and talking with Kratz he knew what to say." That's not true though. There was a break before redirect but it was for a bench conference and then the witness and jury were reseated. There was no time for him to talk with Kratz but maybe he did get a chance to calm down and a moment to think. Testifying is nerve wracking and can be intense. Especially when being questioned by a lawyer who is accusing you of framing his client.

Anyways he said sometimes you are in your cruiser when taking a call and quickly jot something down and need to confirm what you have is correct. He had talked to Det Weignet, who was handling the missing persons report and was asked to go to the Averys since it was one of the last locations they had for her.
So for me that is a reasonable explanation for why he called in and much more plausible than he had stumbled on her car merely hours after she was reported missing. We are after all talking about a woman who had actually been missing for 3 days. So that car would've gone unnoticed for those days until Colborn suddenly found it at the perfect time and before anyone else to set up SA.

IMO it's much more reasonable to conclude that her car never left the Avery property the day she was last seen.

And yes officers do call in license plates for verification purposes without a vehicle in front of them, I've seen it done.

Then what was he doing on the Avery property without a warrant on Nov3? And why confirm it is a '99 Toyota?

 

[Amber29]

Then what was he doing on the Avery property without a warrant on Nov3? And why confirm it is a '99 Toyota?

I'm sorry I'm unsure what you mean. He went to Avery property on the 3rd for a few questions.
I do not believe he saw her vehicle. I believe he was confirming that he had wrote down the license plate correctly. So maybe your question is for someone else.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

the damage to her car was not done by transport. Here you can tell that wheel well is missing.

Also this next picture shows the damage to the car in the crime lab and the way her wheel well looked when she stood in front of her car for that picture is the well on the right.

She could have very well hit a deer and not reported it. After all, she lived and worked in a rural area.

 

[missy1974]

I actually explained this further awhile ago, if you read his testimony on redirect he explains himself. Someone commented that "sure after a 15min break and talking with Kratz he knew what to say." That's not true though. There was a break before redirect but it was for a bench conference and then the witness and jury were reseated. There was no time for him to talk with Kratz but maybe he did get a chance to calm down and a moment to think. Testifying is nerve wracking and can be intense. Especially when being questioned by a lawyer who is accusing you of framing his client.

Anyways he said sometimes you are in your cruiser when taking a call and quickly jot something down and need to confirm what you have is correct. He had talked to Det Weignet, who was handling the missing persons report and was asked to go to the Averys since it was one of the last locations they had for her.
So for me that is a reasonable explanation for why he called in and much more plausible than he had stumbled on her car merely hours after she was reported missing. We are after all talking about a woman who had actually been missing for 3 days. So that car would've gone unnoticed for those days until Colborn suddenly found it at the perfect time and before anyone else to set up SA.

IMO it's much more reasonable to conclude that her car never left the Avery property the day she was last seen.

And yes officers do call in license plates for verification purposes without a vehicle in front of them, I've seen it done.

IMO it was not a reasonable explanation, if he was confirming what he wrote down, it was quite important to include that it is a RAV4 and the color of the vehicle. the plate number and '99 Toyota does not confirm anything. Again... this is a 99 Toyota....


There is a HUGE difference in this vehicle and the vehicle they were looking for IMO

Also... I disagree that they didn't take a break.

14 ATTORNEY STRANG: I'm about to move to a

15 different area, your Honor.

16 THE COURT: All right. We'll take our

17 afternoon break at this time. Members of the jury,

18 do not discuss the case during break. And we'll

19 resume in about 15 minutes.

20 (Jury not present.)

21 THE COURT: Counsel, you should report back

22 a little before 3:00.

23 ATTORNEY STRANG: Thank you.

24 (Recess taken.)

Page 185 Day 7, this was right after that call was played.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

I actually explained this further awhile ago, if you read his testimony on redirect he explains himself. Someone commented that "sure after a 15min break and talking with Kratz he knew what to say." That's not true though. There was a break before redirect but it was for a bench conference and then the witness and jury were reseated. There was no time for him to talk with Kratz but maybe he did get a chance to calm down and a moment to think. Testifying is nerve wracking and can be intense. Especially when being questioned by a lawyer who is accusing you of framing his client.

Anyways he said sometimes you are in your cruiser when taking a call and quickly jot something down and need to confirm what you have is correct. He had talked to Det Weignet, who was handling the missing persons report and was asked to go to the Averys since it was one of the last locations they had for her.
So for me that is a reasonable explanation for why he called in and much more plausible than he had stumbled on her car merely hours after she was reported missing. We are after all talking about a woman who had actually been missing for 3 days. So that car would've gone unnoticed for those days until Colborn suddenly found it at the perfect time and before anyone else to set up SA.

IMO it's much more reasonable to conclude that her car never left the Avery property the day she was last seen.

And yes officers do call in license plates for verification purposes without a vehicle in front of them, I've seen it done.

I did realize it was while he was on his way to Avery's to question him---that makes sense--make sure you have the license plate number in case you spot a vehicle that looks like hers.

 

[missy1974]

I did realize it was while he was on his way to Avery's to question him---that makes sense--make sure you have the license plate number in case you spot a vehicle that looks like hers.

So you mean he was on his way to Avery's before Wiegert called him? I doubt that. It still didn't confirm that it was a 99 Green Toyota RAV4

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Maybe someone ran her off the road and "accidentally" injured her bad, and had to get rid of her.

BD or ST? IDK.

Funny, I thought of that too...but my inclination was to say EA. After all, SA admits to shooting a 30/6 with EA on Friday November 3d. I believe SA is guilty, if no--he is an accomplice.

 

[missy1974]

the damage to her car was not done by transport. Here you can tell that wheel well is missing.
Also this next picture shows the damage to the car in the crime lab and the way her wheel well looked when she stood in front of her car for that picture is the well on the right.

RSBM
I wonder where that wheel well is? And do we know if that signal light cover was ever fingerprinted? It is still not clear to me if it was on when they found the vehicle or not. I think it was. Odd that the crime lab would just throw it into the back like that.

 

[Amber29]

IMO it was not a reasonable explanation, if he was confirming what he wrote down, it was quite important to include that it is a RAV4 and the color of the vehicle. the plate number and '99 Toyota does not confirm anything. Again... this is a 99 Toyota....
View attachment 88369

There is a HUGE difference in this vehicle and the vehicle they were looking for IMO

Also... I disagree that they didn't take a break.

14 ATTORNEY STRANG: I'm about to move to a

15 different area, your Honor.

16 THE COURT: All right. We'll take our

17 afternoon break at this time. Members of the jury,

18 do not discuss the case during break. And we'll

19 resume in about 15 minutes.

20 (Jury not present.)

21 THE COURT: Counsel, you should report back

22 a little before 3:00.

23 ATTORNEY STRANG: Thank you.

24 (Recess taken.)

Page 185 Day 7, this was right after that call was played.

This was not before re direct.

My point his he simply could've been verifying the license plate was correct and he said 99 Toyota just to further that, perhaps he knew he had RAV4 and the color correct. My goodness I understand some disagree and believe this was all the start of the conspiracy theory. I happen to disagree, that's ok. I won't change your mind and you aren't going to change mine.

I'll repeat I do not believe that at that moment Colborn had stumbled on TH vehicle that had been gone for 3 days. I also don't believe that any other killers contacted Colborn personally about finding the vehicle. So the easiest conclusion is the one I believe. The others are far fetched IMO.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Then what was he doing on the Avery property without a warrant on Nov3? And why confirm it is a '99 Toyota?

He didn't need a search warrant to go to Avery's property for a missing person's case. In fact, he didn't need a warrant when Avery said he could search his trailer--he gave consent. It is proper and within legal authority for the police to drive into/onto a property and interview people TH saw that day--if for nothing else to determine her timeline--when she was there, did she say where she was going and that sort of thing.

 

[Amber29]

So you mean he was on his way to Avery's before Wiegert called him? I doubt that. It still didn't confirm that it was a 99 Green Toyota RAV4

No it was the call from Wiegert that sent him to Averys on the 3rd.

 

[MysticJynx]

No it was the call from Wiegert that sent him to Averys on the 3rd.

Yeah a call by wiegert sending him to STEVE AVERYS because of the bill that was given to him by her GOOD FRIENDS! the bill that was missing 2 of her last calls that day. at least 2 from the morning that day. missing the 1 call an hour from that day and written next to BJ's Number is written STEVEN AVERY! Find it really funny that RH knew to point the police to STEVE Avery and not the Avery salvage yard on Nov 3 2005 when Wiegert first questioned the family, roommate and friends.

 

[missy1974]

This was not before re direct.

Re-direct starts on page 212....which comes after 185, I'm not sure what I'm missing here.

They had a 15 minutes break after that call was played in court. They came back, Strang finished cross-exam and then yes, outside of the jury they took up an issue, brought the jury back and then re-direct.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9dpNu3jLO3tSXpDZlBiSVZraTg/view

Here's the link.

 

[ElleElle]

Random thought.

Perhaps Colbourn called in the plate, because he was in front of the plate, and not the RAV4?
We do know the plates were removed. However, it does not explain the make/model inquiry.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

IMO it was not a reasonable explanation, if he was confirming what he wrote down, it was quite important to include that it is a RAV4 and the color of the vehicle. the plate number and '99 Toyota does not confirm anything. Again... this is a 99 Toyota....

There is a HUGE difference in this vehicle and the vehicle they were looking for IMO

Also... I disagree that they didn't take a break.

14 ATTORNEY STRANG: I'm about to move to a

15 different area, your Honor.

16 THE COURT: All right. We'll take our

17 afternoon break at this time. Members of the jury,

18 do not discuss the case during break. And we'll

19 resume in about 15 minutes.

20 (Jury not present.)

21 THE COURT: Counsel, you should report back

22 a little before 3:00.

23 ATTORNEY STRANG: Thank you.

24 (Recess taken.)

Page 185 Day 7, this was right after that call was played.

I think everyone is looking way too deep about this. He was obviously told there was a missing person who could be in the Manitowoc area, possibly driving a Toyota Rav 4. Knowing the area, just 10 years ago--you were a trader and unAmerican if you owned a Toyota--trust me I know So, during briefing he writes down--missing person, driving Rav 4, plate number, green/blue, 5 foot 6", brown hair, etc etc etc.....but doesn't write down the plate number or that it is a Toyota--but vaguely recalls it could be.

Now then Weigert says...he can you go over to the Avery property and talk to them and find out what they know...

He starts heading over there, stops at a stop light...reviews his notes...realizes that if he spots the vehicle, he would have no way of knowing if it was TH's are not...so he calls in, saying....99 Toyota, right? Plate Number xxxxx, right?

Now, if he had said, I'm going to be looking for a 99 Toyota Rav 4, plate number xxxx, blue/green, female 25 about 5.6", etc etc---this would be a non-issue right? ...or would people speculate that he was standing over the body....LOL

 

[BigCityAccountant]

RSBM
I wonder where that wheel well is? And do we know if that signal light cover was ever fingerprinted? It is still not clear to me if it was on when they found the vehicle or not. I think it was. Odd that the crime lab would just throw it into the back like that.

I don't recall the temperature that day--Do you Missy? Those country roads are never salted--it very well could have been she hit some black ice and slide, causing the damage.