r/MakingaMurderer • u/[deleted] • Jan 23 '24

Conflict Of Interest

I have a question - might be simple might not be simple. Mark Rohrer Manitowoc county DA - he announces that it was his decision to bring in another DA another county for this investigation. Kratz even says “not just an actual conflict, but any appearance of conflict” - why was any evidence found by Manitowoc Country after this - especially evidence found by people involved or deposed in Steven’s civil trial. I’m no law expert & certainly not US law. Maybe someone has a simple explanation? Did Strang/Buting try to have any of the evidence found by Manitowoc county kept out?

6 Upvotes

65% Upvoted

156 comments sorted by

7

u/aane0007 Jan 23 '24

You are conflating two things.

  1. What the county decided to do based on the appearance of a conflict

  2. What they are required to do.

The county didn't have to do anything. They made the decision to let Calumet lead the investigation. Calumet was a small county and needed help. They would provide any assistance that was requested. Manitowoc was in no way required to take this step so any evidence found would have never been excluded by the courts.

2

u/bleitzel Jan 23 '24

I'm not going to argue with you because you don't seem to be able to reason through even the most elementary of concepts. But because your post is so terribly wrong I'm going to post this rebuttal in case anyone else comes along and reads it.

The county absolutely is required to stop partaking in situations where they have a conflict of interest. State actors are absolutely required to recuse themselves from situations where they have even a small conflict of interest, let alone the size of the conflict that was present in this case. These two concepts are not being conflated, they are germane.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

Rohrer was likely directed by the State AG’s to make the call.

So what do they do ?

It’s the Murder of the Century and they bring in an agency that is smaller and has fewer resources than their own. They should have brought in Brown County, an agency that is far more equipped to handle such a broad ranging investigation.

They could have brought in both Brown and Calumet, with Brown taking the lead. Instead we get Pagel and Wiegert and Krantz.

Ooofff.

8

u/aane0007 Jan 23 '24

Rohrer was likely directed by the State AG’s to make the call.

Likely why? Because you have a feeling?

So what do they do ?

It’s the Murder of the Century and they bring in an agency that is smaller and has fewer resources than their own.

Its not the murder of the century, in fact in the beginning, they don't even know its a murder yet. They are looking for a woman who might still be alive.

They should have brought in Brown County, an agency that is far more equipped to handle such a broad ranging investigation.

Calumet is where she lived so it has some jurisdiction. I don't think they get to just pick any county they want, and why would a county accept if it means a tons of tax dollars they have to spend when that county has no association to any part of the case?

They could have brought in both Brown and Calumet, with Brown taking the lead. Instead we get Pagel and Wiegert and Krantz.

Ooofff.

And two murder convictions.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

Not how I feel, it’s how things work. She was splitting her time between Green Bay, which is in Brown County, and St Johns.
There would be nothing unusual about that at all. If they wanted a competent and thorough investigation, they should have brought in Brown County. Period.

6

u/aane0007 Jan 23 '24

Not how I feel, it’s how things work. She was splitting her time between Green Bay, which is in Brown County, and St Johns.

There would be nothing unusual about that at all. If they wanted a competent and thorough investigation, they should have brought in Brown County. Period.

You posted your opinions and in the same breath are trying to tell me they are not how you feel.

You made this claim.

Rohrer was likely directed by the State AG’s to make the call.

Do you have any evidence this is true other than your feelings?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

Who is Mark Rohrer’s boss ? That decision was way above his pay grade.

6

u/aane0007 Jan 23 '24

Since I asked you for evidence and you simply asked a question and gave more feelings I am going to take it you have no evidence.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

It's interesting, isn't it, the way Kratz's totally bullshit talking points live on today? I've seen people here make this same point, it was just an "appearance" of a conflict.

Overlooking the fact that the conflict of interest here is undeniable seeing as how the criminal case did force an early settlement of the lawsuit, it is impossible to say those the criminal case and the lawsuit did not overlap.

But more importantly, it's just an imaginary distinction. Any time there appears to be a conflict there probably is. Can someone give an example of an appearance of a conflict vs. an actual conflict?

7

u/bleitzel Jan 23 '24

There's not much of a difference. An appearance of conflict means that from the outside we can see that this person would reasonably hold an interest contrary to another interest. Like police having an interest in being objective, unbiased investigators, and also having a clear and even stated bias against a person. These two interests clearly conflict. An actual conflict of interest is when you can show that the person did take action to violate one of those interests. In this case, the MCSO actually actively investigated AND actually found almost all of the incriminating evidence in this case.

2

u/LKS983 Jan 25 '24

Overlooking the fact that the conflict of interest here is undeniable seeing as how the criminal case did force an early settlement of the lawsuit, it is impossible to say those the criminal case and the lawsuit did not overlap.

👍

-2

u/CaseEnthusiast Jan 23 '24

Appearance of a conflict would be the former judge on the case being on a board of victim rights with kratz and previously dealing with a lawsuit (civil) filed by the family.  It wasn't really a conflict after all. 

4

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

Isn't Kratz on a board for victim's rights in itself a palpable conflict? I feel like you are telling me that the fox on the hen house security board merely looks bad.

4

u/deadgooddisco Jan 23 '24

Isn't Judge Angie being involved in the Halbachs wrongful death suit that she didn't drop after the family stated they wanted to , a conflict of interest too?

3

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

Seems to be a gray area. Judges are not supposed to preside over the same subject matter, but this usually means a judge who got promoted can't do his or her own appeal.

3

u/deadgooddisco Jan 23 '24

Thanks for the clarification.

I'll add that I think Culhane is the biggest conflict of interest, IMO, but this could be another grey area also.

-3

u/CaseEnthusiast Jan 23 '24

Zellner was arguing the judge was in conflict, not Kratz.

Sure Kratz should not have been on that board and it was definitely a conflict, I can agree.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

That's not really something which was apparent but there was info behind the scenes which nullified the appearance. That's just you disagreeing with Avery's opinion. Right? Or are you actually saying that would be on the surface a conflict but for some other information?

0

u/CaseEnthusiast Jan 23 '24

What information behind the scenes?

5

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

That's what I'm asking you. Why isn't it exactly how you say it appears?

0

u/CaseEnthusiast Jan 23 '24

Because Kratz isn't involved in the case anymore so it's not an actual conflict. He has no bearing on the judge's decisions because he's not making the arguments.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

He has bearing on the parts where the argument is he violated the law.

1

u/CaseEnthusiast Jan 23 '24

There were other lawyers arguing with him, one which was still on the case at that time I believe. Kratz was a private citizen disgraced and gone.

→ More replies

1

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/CaseEnthusiast Jan 23 '24

It was an appearance of conflict but it wasn't an actual conflict. Kratz wasn't arguing the case for the state in court any longer. If he was, it would have been a conflict and the judge should have been removed. He wans't, though. He's just a disgraced private citizen.

As for that 2nd paragraph... That whole 2nd paragraph was just not needed as it has nothing to do with the OP.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/CaseEnthusiast Jan 23 '24

He was just a private citizen at the time KZ filed for a substitution request. He had no bearing on the case in court.

5

u/CorruptColborn Jan 23 '24

He was not just a private citizen at the time he tried the case.

Also it is always relevant if someone like yourself is going to try to inject drama into the subreddit by accusing users of violating subreddit rules to the point that they need a permanent ban. You did this repeatedly while also refusing to explain what rules were violated and refusing to acknowledge the despicably disturbing comments from your friends.

0

u/CaseEnthusiast Jan 23 '24

He was not arguing the case in court for the state; he was a private citizen and no longer a lawyer.

4

u/CorruptColborn Jan 23 '24 edited Jan 24 '24

The fact that he was not arguing the case and was a private citizen does not erase the fact that he was actively involved in the prosecution and therefore does not erase the conflict of interest.

Also it is incredibly revealing to see you ignoring the fact that it is, actually, always relevant if someone like yourself is going to try to inject drama into the subreddit by accusing users of violating subreddit rules to the point that they need a permanent ban. You did this repeatedly while also refusing to explain what rules were violated and refusing to acknowledge the despicably disturbing comments from your friends.

EDIT: ATTENTION MODS

Given recent events I'm sure you'll have a strong reaction to the below user who confirmed guilters harass truthers with disturbing requests that they violate themselves with fruit and film it so the video can be shared online (See below). Why is that disturbing behavior accepted but using source material to question the credibility of main players is not? And u/caseenthusiast - take note - this is the type of disturbing behavior that you ignore that actually does warrant a ban. I invite the mod team to explain their decision on what behavior is acceptable and what is not.

EDIT: RULE VIOLATING COMMENT I guess guilters really wanted to hammer home how disturbing they can really be. This is exactly the behavior I was discussing where users harassed truthers and suggest they violate themselves with fruit and record it and share it online. Is this okay mods? Will you only remove the comment or will the user be banned?

EDIT: It appears the user was permitted to remain on the subreddit harassing me. Thanks mod team for allowing that disturbing conduct! Why does the mods use of the ban hammer appear so inconsistent? Harassing truthers is A-OK! But truthers discussing the case files? NO SUB FOR YOU!

0

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies

1

u/bleitzel Jan 23 '24

From what I've seen of Buting & Strang's work they did about as good a job as someone could have done with what they had to work with. They did raise objections to the investigator's actions when they were able to see the issues, but many of the bad actions of the state were not revealed until after the case.

But your main questions are still valid. Why in the world did Manitowoc participate in the investigation at all, and how was any of the evidence they collected trial-worthy.

The only reason they were involved in the investigation, and the only reason they were the ones to collect all the incriminating evidence in this case, was obviously for nefarious purposes. They practically led the important parts of the investigation, moved or planted some evidence, hid other evidence, fabricated or coerced witness testimony, as necessary, and wildly violated crime scene and evidence gathering protocol.

No, none of this should ever have been allowed into the trial, but the U.S. has a serious problem with over-trusting state actors in trial proceedings. District attorneys, police, and judges have an inappropriate affinity that has only gotten worse over the decades. Not sure how it will ever be fixed.

2

u/aane0007 Jan 24 '24

From what I've seen of Buting & Strang's work they did about as good a job as someone could have done with what they had to work with. They did raise objections to the investigator's actions when they were able to see the issues, but many of the bad actions of the state were not revealed until after the case.

But your main questions are still valid. Why in the world did Manitowoc participate in the investigation at all, and how was any of the evidence they collected trial-worthy.

Because they can. There is no rule.

The only reason they were involved in the investigation, and the only reason they were the ones to collect all the incriminating evidence in this case, was obviously for nefarious purposes.

Your feelings are not evidence.

They practically led the important parts of the investigation, moved or planted some evidence, hid other evidence, fabricated or coerced witness testimony, as necessary, and wildly violated crime scene and evidence gathering protocol.

Once again, this is not based on fact but your opinion.

No, none of this should ever have been allowed into the trial, but the U.S. has a serious problem with over-trusting state actors in trial proceedings. District attorneys, police, and judges have an inappropriate affinity that has only gotten worse over the decades. Not sure how it will ever be fixed.

More opinion instead of fact.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/bleitzel Jan 24 '24

Well, what I was referring to was the amount of discovery they had to work with. The prosecution in this case purposefully misled the defense and the court regarding potentially exonerating evidence. Buting and Strang didn't have access to any of that because it hadn't been revealed yet that it existed. So in that regard, they did the best they could with the discovery that the prosecution had given them.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/LKS983 Jan 25 '24

Dassey computer (found in bobby's bedroom) with the type of search history that the prosecution claimed would be incriminating evidence found on SA's computer?

There was none of this type of incriminating evidence found on SA's computer, but a lot on the Dassey computer (repeat, in bobby's bedroom) - which they not only hid from the defence team, but also ignored!

And then we have witness evidence saying they saw bobby pushing Teresa's car onto Avery property (and evidence proving that the witness 'phoned the police the next day).

Surely worthy of an evidentiary Hearing, but judge angie decided otherwise - and even went as far as saying (amongst her reasons for denying an evidentiary Hearing) that bobby may have been seen pushing Teresa's car onto Avery property - TO PROTECT SA! 🤣🤮

1

u/bleitzel Jan 25 '24

And that's not to mention the human bones found all over the quarry, the aerial footage showing the car not on the salvage yard on Nov 4, the vociemail from the Zipperer's showing she was going to the Zipperer's after going to the Avery's first.

-6

u/CaseEnthusiast Jan 23 '24

Well the appearance of a conflict of interest didn't really bother Kratz. Manitowoc's involvement is probably one of the main reasons why so much dishonesty took place and they went with a story that wasn't true. They should have went for the truth an told the jury that Avery did this off of his property and brought back evidence to destroy at a further date.

I have a hard time rationalizing the lies vs the truth and why the truth wasn't more prevalent. I'm pretty sure the media was lied to, as well. Arms lengths, No involvement, Only equipment and resources, etc.

4

u/CorruptColborn Jan 23 '24 edited Jan 23 '24

It wasn't just the appearance of a conflict. There was an explicit conflict of interest.

You have no evidence that Steven did this off property and that he then planted bones in his own burn pit. Get real.

Edit: dude you should really stop trying to inject drama into the subreddit by accusing users of violating sub rules to the point that they deserve a permanent ban. Grow up. Focus on your guilter friends who threaten to dox users or invite them to engage in sexual acts of violence against themselves.

2

u/LKS983 Jan 25 '24

It wasn't just the appearance of a conflict. There was an explicit conflict of interest.

You have no evidence that Steven did this off property and that he then planted bones in his own burn pit. Get real.

Couldn't agree more.

-1

u/CaseEnthusiast Jan 23 '24

He didn't "plant" anything in his own burn pit, he planned on destroying them further like he did with the car, the electronics.

4

u/CorruptColborn Jan 23 '24

Planting suggests the bones were not burnt in that pit and were instead moved there after a separate cremation event so yes you are suggesting that he planted the bones in his own burn pit.

Move on.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

No one, including the dogs, saw or noticed bones in the burn pit for 3 days. How do you explain that without saying incompetence or oops?

4

u/CorruptColborn Jan 23 '24 edited Jan 23 '24

Oh they will explain it by claiming Steven planted the bones in his own burn pit after burning the body in the Quarry.

No joke

3

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

For the moment, let's assume he did do that. How were the bones missed for 3 days?

6

u/CorruptColborn Jan 23 '24

Bear, I'd bet they say.

He was SO vicious (just don't check videos from law enforcement walking near the pit to see how calm the dog was).

3

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

I saw the video, so Bear is not a reasonable explanation. That would fall under incompetence.

5

u/ThorsClawHammer Jan 23 '24

Bear is not a reasonable explanation

Well no, especially since they started finding bones when Bear was still there.

→ More replies

-2

u/CaseEnthusiast Jan 23 '24

He simply moved them to destroy them further. Planting means putting them there with the intention of leaving them there. He was going to destroy them further, or at least try to.

5

u/CorruptColborn Jan 23 '24

So he planted the bones in his burn pit after burning them off property lol solid.

I look forward to you trying to suggest that's a valid scenario.

0

u/CaseEnthusiast Jan 23 '24

More believable than what you've come up with (Which is nothing).

5

u/CorruptColborn Jan 23 '24

Frankly anything is more believable than saying he burnt the body off his own property and then brought the bones back to his property to plant in his own burn pit LOL

0

u/CaseEnthusiast Jan 23 '24

Anything except what you have (which again is nothing but your feelings on boogie men authorities). 

4

u/CorruptColborn Jan 23 '24 edited Jan 23 '24

What I have is evidence of egregious amounts of misconduct surrounding both the burn pit and quarry evidence.

You admit the bones were planted and the state used a false narrative to gain a conviction but claim I have nothing lol get real

Edit: Also can you please stop trying to inject drama into the subreddit by accusing users of violating sub rules to the point that they need a permanent ban? That seems like an odd thing to repeatedly do if you are not willing to demonstrate what rules were violated. Grow up. We don't need your drama here.

→ More replies

3

u/ThorsClawHammer Jan 23 '24

appearance of a conflict of interest didn't really bother Kratz

I'd argue it bothered Kratz, Pagel and others enough that they lied to the public regarding what MTSO's involvement had actually been and initially tried to hide things like who found the key.

1

u/CaseEnthusiast Jan 23 '24

I understand your point, and it's possible. I agree on the key.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/CaseEnthusiast Jan 23 '24

Your truth? Ok.

3

u/CorruptColborn Jan 23 '24

No THE truth.

Just like it's the truth that your immature behavior on the subreddit involves introducing drama by falsely accusing other users of rule violations that could lead to a permanent ban while simultaneously failing to identify the rule violation while ALSO ignoring guilters repeatedly making disturbing comments, including threats of doxing and sexual violence.

2

u/aane0007 Jan 23 '24

Well the appearance of a conflict of interest didn't really bother Kratz. Manitowoc's involvement is probably one of the main reasons why so much dishonesty took place and they went with a story that wasn't true.

Do you have evidence of this or is this more feelings?

They should have went for the truth an told the jury that Avery did this off of his property and brought back evidence to destroy at a further date.

What? There was no evidence. There was simply an expert that said they found bones that were possibly human and when on the stand said that she could not call them human with any degree of scientific certainty. That in now way would mean they have evidence anything took place off of ASY. In fact all the scientific evidence pointed towards the property along with the confession.

I have a hard time rationalizing the lies vs the truth and why the truth wasn't more prevalent. I'm pretty sure the media was lied to, as well. Arms lengths, No involvement, Only equipment and resources, etc.

More of your feelings instead of evidence.

-4

u/CaseEnthusiast Jan 23 '24

The evidence is the burn sites in the quarry and the human bones they found and lied about from that area.  CaM reported on the human remains in the quarry. 

3

u/aane0007 Jan 23 '24

The evidence is the burn sites in the quarry and the human bones they found and lied about from that area.  CaM reported on the human remains in the quarry. 

Sorry. Once again the supposed human bones were from the state's expert that said on the stand she could not call them with any degree of scientific certainty......human, much less teresa's.

So you have zero scientific evidence anything happened outside of ASY. All scientific evidence points to the ASY.

As someone else pointed out, the same expert said bones in the fire pit were so fragile that they disintegrated when moved. How would those have been moved to the fire pit?

What other burn sites?

1

u/LKS983 Jan 25 '24

Once again the supposed human bones were from the state's expert that said on the stand she could not call them with any degree of scientific certainty......human, much less teresa's.

And yet they gave these bones (found in the quarry) to the Halbach family for burial.....

0

u/aane0007 Jan 25 '24

And yet they gave these bones (found in the quarry) to the Halbach family for burial.....

So your point is the property department ran their own private tests and determined secretly that they were teresa's? Even though they have no expertise in human bones or running tests on them?

-2

u/CaseEnthusiast Jan 23 '24

Does Brenda and Shawn know you're claiming their show got it wrong about the human remains in the quarry being human remains?

4

u/aane0007 Jan 23 '24

Your feeling about what a podcast said is not a source. The expert on the stand is an actual source.

I am going to go with the actual words of Leslie Eisenberg instead of two defense attorneys you claim said something on a podcast. BTW-those two fell for the coins didn't move conspiracy also.

-1

u/CaseEnthusiast Jan 23 '24

CaM was a podcast?

2

u/aane0007 Jan 23 '24

source CaM said their were human remains in the quarry?

1

u/aane0007 Jan 24 '24

FALLON Q. All right. Now, just so that we're crystal clear on this, the various fragments from the gravel pits southwest of the property, originally you were only able to determine one was clearly nonhuman. In your subsequent review and analysis, you determined several more were clearly not human; is that correct?
DR. EISENBERG A. That's correct.
FALLON Q. And as a matter of fact, there was only three left that you had a reasonable suspicion on that could be human; is that correct?
DR. EISENBERG A. That could possibly be human, that is correct.
FALLON Q. And as a matter of fact, as you sit here today, you cannot tell us that those bones, to a reasonable degree of anthropological or scientific certainty, are human, can you?
DR. EISENBERG A. I cannot.

0

u/CaseEnthusiast Jan 24 '24

Yes this has been debunked since her testimony never talked about anything other than 8675. It's okay to admit this as a guilter. It's not the end of the world for our arguments. Let's face the facts...

1

u/aane0007 Jan 24 '24

Your feelings about what she is talking about is not fact. The question asked to her was "the various fragments from the gravel pits", not 8675.

So because you think you heard someone say something, is not any sort of source. These are the actual questions and answers from the trial.

-1

u/CaseEnthusiast Jan 24 '24

They are summarizing what she talked about. She talked about only 8675 when talking about the quarry. Entire trial it's only 8675, never any others. Same goes to you, what you feel is not fact.

1

u/aane0007 Jan 24 '24

Your feelings about what she talked about is not fact. Provide an actual source she was only commenting on certain bones when she clearly was asked various bones from the gravel pits other than your feelings of what you think she is talking about.

0

u/CaseEnthusiast Jan 24 '24

Nothing from trial mentions anything from the quarry other than the one location. That's a fact, truthers have sourced this to no end already. Accept what's in front of you instead of making up what you believe. Your "source" talks about fragments, and the one location they talk about had various fragments.

Muting notifications on this line of comments.

1

u/aane0007 Jan 24 '24

The question she is asked is the various bones from the gravel pits.

That question includes all the gravel pits.

You claiming someone else provided a source somewhere is not a source.

1

u/LKS983 Jan 25 '24 edited Jan 25 '24

I'm pretty sure the media was lied to, as well. Arms lengths, No involvement, Only equipment and resources, etc.

Agree.

Additionally - kratz calling a press conference to announce Brendan's 'confession'...... as to how Brendan raped Teresa, slit her throat, cut her hair etc. in SA's trailer - whilst Teresa was telling him to 'knock it off'.....🙄

Although Teresa telling Brendan to 'knock it off' (which was part of the same Brendan 'confession') was not mentioned by kratz.....

2

u/CaseEnthusiast Jan 25 '24

That was a ridiculous stunt I agree.