New Witness Comes Foward

Discussion in 'Netflix Series: Making A Murderer' started by mattaculb, Apr 12, 2021.

  1. missy1974

    missy1974 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,141
    Likes Received:
    31,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Right!!! And it continues even now with the family. I think if this had just been Avery accused... or even Avery and Bobby together accused, I may not even give it a second thought, but then add in Brendan ... and I truly do not believe he was involved... and just how much his family threw him under the bus, why do that unless you are protecting yourself or another loved one?
     


  2. Seattle1

    Seattle1 #LiveLikeLizzy

    Messages:
    21,327
    Likes Received:
    225,933
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree @missy1974! It was almost as if they thought Brendan would somehow meet some exemption-- and then using him backfired-- and it was like 'oh, well.' Shameful!
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2021
  3. GoBuckeyes

    GoBuckeyes Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes Received:
    9,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Kathleen Zellner discusses further information about Bobby Dassey that wasn't in Making a Murderer
     
    EvaGreen, Cortne and Tippy Lynn like this.
  4. GoBuckeyes

    GoBuckeyes Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes Received:
    9,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Kathleen Zellner discusses further information about Bobby Dassey that wasn't in Making a Murderer
     
    Cortne and Tippy Lynn like this.
  5. missy1974

    missy1974 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,141
    Likes Received:
    31,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    GoBuckeyes and Tippy Lynn like this.
  6. missy1974

    missy1974 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,141
    Likes Received:
    31,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    haha So the State actually filed a "Motion to Strike Improper Reply"... which seems silly... they accuse of her of not doing any sort of investigation... she provides a reply with evidence of doing an investigation before filing the original motion, which I understand, she didn't even have to do that, but did, and they don't like it?

    Will watch for a link to the newly filed motion when someone uploads it.
     
  7. scipio_usmc

    scipio_usmc Member

    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    18
    There is no right to present new information unless it would change the outcome of the trial. Moreover, to be new it has to be something that Avery's lawyers never heard before but they did receive his claims in 2016 but found them useless. His claims have changed to be useful to Zellner. The changes harm his credibility severely and belie your claim he has no dong in the hunt.

    The allegation of a Brady violation is absurd. His original account even if true is not in any way, shape or form a Brady violation. If we pretend he did call police in 2005 to say on an unspecified date, at an unspecified time he saw unknown persons pushing a vehicle that he things could have been Halbach's Rav that would have been wholly worthless. It not only would have been wholly worthless in 2005 but also in 2016 when he made this claim to Avery's attorneys. Moreover he claimed police never asked his name or phone number or any other contact information so how could the prosecution provide such to the defense?

    My own personal opinion is either he made this claim up after watching MAM because he wanted to help Avery or he did see a vehicle being pushed long in the past, it had nothing to do with the Halbach murder and his imagination caused him to think it happened at the Avery property. His story changed drastically.

    To try to make it of more value the details were drastically changed to he left his contact information but they never called back and suddenly he knows the day it was and he knows it was Bobby though he didn't know that in 2016 after watching MAM and seeing Bobby in it. Those changes are not only not credible but demonstrate bias at work.

    His claims are not credible and have no ability whatsoever to alter the verdict. He didn't even bother to state the time he would typically deliver the papers. The more he is confronted the more his claims would fall apart which is why Zellner includes such little detail.

    Steven Avery drove the Rav to a location where he dumped numerous other vehicles that he had owned, disconnected the battery either to preserve it for when he wanted to move it in the future or to prevent any power locks, alarms etc from functioning and then buried it in crap to make it appear it was there a long time. That is why his DNA was found on the hood latch. No one else disconnected the battery let alone chose to disconnect the battery and push it all the way to the fringes of the yard in an area Steven used as a dumping ground. Zellner has a long history of BS and behavior that is ethically challenged.
     
    norest4thewicked and Cortne like this.
  8. scipio_usmc

    scipio_usmc Member

    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Actually she did very little investigating and most of what she posted has nothing to do with the new claim. She fails to account for his drastic change let alone to present any kind of realistic Brady violation. She is the proverbial throw anything at the wall type. She never follows procedure and really should be sanctioned for it.
     
    Cortne likes this.
  9. scipio_usmc

    scipio_usmc Member

    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Steven threw Brendan under the Bus not Bobby. Brendan should have sought a deal to testify against Avery and plead guilty to the limited participation he had. Instead Steven and the family wanted him to protect Steven and he got screwed in the process.
     
    Cortne likes this.
  10. Seattle1

    Seattle1 #LiveLikeLizzy

    Messages:
    21,327
    Likes Received:
    225,933
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ^^rsbm

    I disagree that the defense does not have the right to present concealed evidence that was not used in the original trial. I don't believe we can say whether or not the suppressed info would change the outcome of the trial and believe the court should make that determination. MOO

    https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...12+-+Motion+to+Stay+&+Remand+FILE+STAMPED.pdf
     
    Traymar, EvaGreen, GoBuckeyes and 2 others like this.
  11. scipio_usmc

    scipio_usmc Member

    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Bobby had nothing to do with it. Brendan is the one who helped get rid of the body and other evidence. He was not an innocent victim. At the same time Steven and the rest of the family were more interested in protecting Steven than helping Brendan.
     
    Cortne likes this.
  12. scipio_usmc

    scipio_usmc Member

    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    18
    What concealed evidence? If we take his original claim as true he never provided his name or contact information to police and said he saw undetermined people pushing an undetermined vehicle at an undetermined point in time. No rational person would claim his nonsense would have changed the outcome.

    In the meantime we are supposed to believe that at the time this occurred on Avery property he didn't know Halbach was last seen at Avery Salvage and was missing though it was the story of the week and he looked at papers he was delivering which had the story on the front page. He never saw any news or articles until days after the event happened- yeah that's credible.

    Furthermore, Manitowoc was not the agency investigating at the time he allegedly called so if he truly called as claimed he would have been told to contact Calumet.

    His claims are patently ludicrous to anyone who has a clue.

    Avery has known about this claim since 2016. A lawyer bears the burden of establishing good cause for Avery not following up on the claim in 2016 and waiting until now. Moreover Avery bears the burden of establishing the outcome would have been different had this babble been admissible and used at trial. Zellner has not come up with anything coherent so far as arguments. She keeps making new accusations against new people with no credible evidence. It is complete nonsense from start to finish like the other crap she came up with. All her witnesses drastically change their claims from the past to try to make it appear they have some smoking gun.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2021
    Cortne likes this.
  13. scipio_usmc

    scipio_usmc Member

    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Steven Avery and Brendan did it. They were seen by the fire. They cleaned up the evidence in the garage where she was shot. They dumped the vehicle in a location where Steven junked other vehicles he owned. The evidence against Avery is overwhelming. There is no way in hell any court would ever ignore the evidence for all the BS lies that Zellner has come up with.

    It is no accident that Steven Avery is the last person to see her alive, that her remains were found in the ashes of a fire people witnessed him having on the same night she vanished, that his DNA was in her vehicle and he had her key etc. The noise that she has come up with all fails miserably for what is required to vacate a conviction and frankly in my 20 years of practicing law I have seen law students put forth better arguments and have a stronger writing style. She writes as poorly as someone not skilled in the legal field. Her briefs are the worst I have ever seen she doesn't even put in effort she just steals claims from Avery supporters that are posted on the web.
     
    Cortne likes this.
  14. scipio_usmc

    scipio_usmc Member

    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Cortne likes this.
  15. scipio_usmc

    scipio_usmc Member

    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    18
    For the record, when I was a teen (20 plus years ago) I witnessed a murder. I was collecting carts outside a grocery store. A woman and her daughter were crossing the road to the store. I was at most 20 feet away. A man ran the woman over, the mother pushed the girl out of the way and amazingly she was not hit. He then got out and stabbed her to death. He then stuck the knife in the seat of her car and he stood there. Many of us were frozen in shock. The police department was across the street from the mall so police were on scene right away. The man was arrested without incident he just stood there looking at the victim waiting to be arrested. Seeing something that traumatic should melt the man's image into my mind right? Given the passage of time I could not give a sketch artist a good image of him, the victim or the little girl. The most vivid image I have at this point in her body flying and the knife in the seat. I felt very bad for the little girl having to witness something so horrific but still can't really describe her in any detail. I also remember that no one approached him or the victim until police came. If this had simply been a traffic accident not a murder I would not even recall it in the detail I do.

    People who come forward many years later and claim they can provide an accurate identification should be viewed with skepticism. Especially if they claim to have been traveling fast in the dark and only had the headlights on the person for a moment it would be hard to make an identification that same day let alone would the person remember the face many years later. People have to apply common sense and real world experiences.

    In my years of practicing law I have never seen a memory get better only worse and that is why it is so important to get things on the record with depositions. I can't tell you how many people don't even recall things they said at their depositions by the time they testified at a trial. When memories improve it is often them mixing up details from unrelated events.

    That actually happened with women who worked in the office of the prosecutor of Steven Avery for his 1985 rape. Subsequent to Avery's conviction Gregory Allen was a suspect in a rape and appeared in Vogel's office. He claimed he could not have done it because he was on parole in another county. Some 15 years later a woman conflated this case with the Avery case and claimed Vogel said he had an Alibi for the Avery rape though in fact Allen was never suspected of that rape. This error was jumped on by Avery supporters as evidence of him being framed though it is nonsense. All that occurred is the victim was sure he was her rapist but she was wrong and made an erroneous identification which happens.

    That simply underscores why this supposed identification with was recognize subsequent to 2016 is highly untrustworthy.
     
    norest4thewicked likes this.
  16. scipio_usmc

    scipio_usmc Member

    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    18
    1) After Calumet took over anytime people called Manitowoc and made a reference to the Halbach case the dispatcher referred them to Calumet County.

    2) The differences are extremely stark and extremely significant.

    A) There is a world of difference between saying he provided his contact information to police and they promised to call him back and they didn't even want his contact information so had no clue who he was and could not call him even if they had wanted to. Both are mutually exclusive and show he either was making things up or his memory is worthless so he should not be trusted. If we are going to run with a claim the initial claim is usually the more accurate one. The original claim is useless and precludes any Brady argument which is why the claim was changed

    B) There is a world of difference between allegedly telling police 2 unknown people were pushing a vehicle on an unknown day and allegedly telling them that Bobby Dassey was pushing it with another man on November 5. To claim the latter despite the fact he supposedly didn't even know it was Bobby Dassey in 2016 makes it not credible at all. Trying to argue that there is a Brady violation by a dispatcher not taking down the info about some unknown people is not the least bit serious so far as a legal argument goes.

    3) A newspaper person delivers papers 5-7am not 1am as he originally claimed and would not be of any value at all in the case. We don't even know if Barbara actually had a subscription as he claims or if he would have been the one to deliver it to them anyway.

    4) Strang and Buting were this trial lawyers not his appellate counsel. The email was to his appellate counsel prior to Zellner who only ran in for publicity because MAM created publicity and she wanted in on the limelight.

    5) The sound of a vehicle would make no difference Chuck and Delores would not go investigate. In the meantime if so worried about the vehicle being noticed at night while passing their houses all one had to do was to take the quarry road and go in the back way instead. No one would push or drive her vehicle to the junkyard from some other location anyway. If she had been attacked somewhere unconnected to the Avery property the vehicle would have been left there. No one would return to the vehicle and risk police staking it out or pulling them over while driving it so they could hide it on Avery property instead of leaving it in the location that failed to implicate the Avery clan. The main reason Steven would hide it in the junkyard is to avoid the risk of being caught driving in it as he tried to dump it somewhere far from Avery land plus even if by some miracle he was not seen driving in it he would have no way to get back home.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2021
    norest4thewicked and Cortne like this.
  17. scipio_usmc

    scipio_usmc Member

    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    18
    why was my post that referenced the deposition questions I would ask of Sowinsky deleted? I should not have to quote trial transcripts to justify questions I would ask.
     
  18. scipio_usmc

    scipio_usmc Member

    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    18
    is there a way to view deleted posts to edit them since I am being told I have to provide sources? I don't even remember what I wrote that was deleted?
     
  19. missy1974

    missy1974 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,141
    Likes Received:
    31,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How do you know they did receive the email? Do know where he sent it? You do know who his lawyer/s were at the time, right?

    I have read your posts, I pretty much disagree with most of what you have posted. But that is just my opinion. Over the years, we have discussed so many different aspects of this case, many of us that have been here from the beginning probably will not change our minds.. but that again, is JMO.
     
    EvaGreen and Tippy Lynn like this.
  20. scipio_usmc

    scipio_usmc Member

    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    18
    It went to his innocence project lawyers. Zellner is the one who drafted the affidavit where he stated he emailed Avery's lawyers.

    She provided the email and it shows significant differences form what is being claimed now.
     
    norest4thewicked and Cortne like this.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice