Convoluted Brian

the weBlog of Brian McCorkle

The Importance of Understanding

The A.G Report – Ignoring the Usual Suspects

In September 2003, Gregory A. Allen’s DNA was matched to hairs left on the victim of the July, 1985 assault. His mode of operation matched the behavior in the 1985 crime, and he was in the area when it occurred. He was also a suspect of a similar attempted assault that took place in the same location shortly before the July assault.(1)

Allen was in the Green Bay Correctional Facility serving a sixty‑year sentence for a 1995 sexual assault when he was identified as a match to the hairs.

At the time of the July, 1985 assault, Avery was tagged as the only suspect, Allen was already known as a sexual criminal and his record was in the case file for the prosecution. Yet, authorities bent over backward to not implicate him.

Knowledge and suspicions of Allen were well established by the time of the 1985 sexual assault. He was known to the Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Department as well as the Manitowoc City Police. One early report regards Allen as a suspect in a murder that took place in 1975. Authorities from North Carolina sent this information to the Sheriff. County Detective Conrad relayed this information to Detective Bergner of the Manitowoc police.(VI‑7)

Other incidents which involved Allen included:

  • 1983 Lewd and lascivious behavior complaint signed by Prosecutor Dennis Vogel. A copy of this was in the Avery case file.(IV‑6)
  • A Sheriff’s department file of Allen exposing himself and masturbating on 15 December, 1983.(IV‑7)
  • In an August 2, 1983 incident, Manitowoc Police suspected Allen in a case where a man masturbated and then lunged at a woman. This was in the same vicinity of the attack of which Avery was convicted.(IV‑12)
  • On 24 January, 1985, and 2 February 1985 Allen was suspected of prowling. Vogel received complaints for theses incidents, but declined to prosecute.(IV‑14)
  • Allen was suspected of exposing himself to a woman at her door on 26 June, 1985.(IV‑17)
  • On 14 July, 1985, he was a suspect in a breaking in and assaulting of a woman.(IV‑9, IV‑20)(2)

After Avery’s arrest and charging, Manitowoc Deputy Police Chief Thomas Bergner discussed Allen as a suspect with Sheriff Kocourek. Kocourek told Bergner that Allen had been ruled out. Kocourek denies any memory of this exchange.(IV‑8)

Officers in the Sheriff’s Department also expressed their concern that the wrong person was in custody. A sheriff’s lieutenant, Leroy Beilke, told the captain of detectives, Don Belz that a man known to commit sexual crimes was seen in the area at the time of the sexual assault. Belz replied that the Sheriff wanted Avery convicted so there was no point in bringing that man in for questioning. Kocourek claims that he would have thoroughly investigated any suspect.(IV‑25)

After Avery was in custody, the victim contacted the Sheriff’s department and reported that she had been receiving sexually harassing phone calls. She believes she talked to the sheriff, and the response was that the department had jurisdiction over the case. There is no indication of a follow‑up. The sheriff does not recall the conversation.(IV‑11)

Persons in the prosecutor’s office also commented that Allen was a more likely suspect than Avery. Allen had enough contact with the prosecutor’s office for office personnel recognize him from the sketch made from the victim’s description and completed just before the photo array was presented. The victim/witness coordinator was one of those who believed the sketch was representative of Allen.(IV‑25)(3)

Prosecutor Vogel apparently considered Allen as a petty flasher.(IV‑32) But, he prosecuted Allen for the 1983 case were Allen had masturbated while walking behind a woman and then lunged at her. The offense took place at the same beach where the sexual assault took place. In addition, Vogel provided an alibi for Allen, claiming that Allen was in Door County because of probation. Vogel further claimed that he had verified this to be true, however, Allen was not placed on probation in Door County until after Avery’s conviction.(VI‑31)(4)

The county prosecutor and sheriff both had knowledge of Allen as did members of the sheriff’s department. Information was given to the sheriff about other suspects, but this was ignored.(IV‑25)

Besides Allen, no other suspects with a history of sex related behaviors was considered. As it turns out, Gregory A. Allen was determined to be the actual perpetrator. Had it been someone else, it is possible that a criminal would still be free and Avery would still be in prison.

The exclusion of Allen from the investigation is truly amazing. This exclusion was bolstered by an erroneous alibi given by prosecutor Vogel for Allen. The exclusion of known sexual criminals demonstrates an extreme narrowness of vision of the sheriff and prosecutor.

It was incompetence that excluded Allen and others from consideration.


References

(1) http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/2003/nr012203_DCI.asp
December 17, 2003

Memorandum Wisconsin Department of Justice – Steven Avery Wrongful Conviction

There are no page numbers in the issued report. The references used here will use section outline numbers used in the report followed by the paragraph number of the section. So the reference (IV‑14) would refer to paragraph fourteen of section 4.

(2) Of course being a suspect does not mean that a person is a perpetrator. They could be a victim of unfortunate happenstance. In Allen’s case, there was at least one conviction. And although victims could not identify Allen, they often described clothing that matched his while he was in the vicinity of the crimes.
(3) Note that Sheriff Kocourek did not observe the sketch before fingering Avery. He assembled a photo array earlier in the day. When the sketch was complete at 10:20 P.M. Kocourek had assembled the array and took it to the victim.
(4) This behavior of prosecutors and their darlings are not unusual. In the Canadian Schoolgirl Murders, Karla Homolka Teal was promised a very short sentence although the authorities had video tape of her killing her sister. The tapes also showed Karla drugging and assaulting another young girl. It is very likely that Homolka strangled one of the other two victims. Invisible Darkness, Stephan Williams: Little, Brown 1998
In the case of Laurie Dann, police even persuaded victims of her thefts and vandalism not to bring charges. Detectives investigating her stabbing of her estranged husband completely botched the investigation by claiming the stabbing was self‑inflicted and not securing potential crime scenes. A prosecutor alerted of Dann’s increasing telephone threats and vandalism refuses to bring charges because she was not charged in the stabbing incident. On 20 May, 1988, among other acts, Laurie Dann shot up a second grade classroom killing one of the students. Murder of Innocence, Joel Kaplan, George Papajohn, Eric Zorn: Warren Books, 1990

Related Posts

Introduction
The Reasonable Suspect Hypothesis
Courts and the Wrongful Conviction
Conclusions

by Brian McCorkle
posted on 8 January, 2007 at 23:03 pm
in category Steven Avery

While Manitowoc County authorities were exercising their tunnel vision on Steven Avery, an unlikely suspect, the perpetrator continued his series of crimes.



if you enjoy this blog, consider adding something to the tip jar for
Convoluted Brian

Secure Payment Accepted


Use PayPal with or without an account

Categories:



Archives


Syndicate this Site




Visit

Brian the Brain
my Photography web site

brian the brain prints
fine art canvas prints from Brian the Brain

Brian the Writer
more essays plus poetry and short stories