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
    I'm not sure what you posted exactly, but you have stated a few things as if they are fact. Here at WS's, we state things as MOO IMO JMO (my own opinion, in my opinion, just my opinion). If possible, providing links to 'facts' is key. Hope that helps! Unfortunately, no, there is no way to go back and edit, or at least not one I have ever found.
     
    EvaGreen likes this.


  2. missy1974

    missy1974 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,141
    Likes Received:
    31,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Avery wasn't represented by the Innocence Project though. That's my point. You are saying that he emailed "Avery's lawyer"... no, he emailed the Innocence Project. He may have believed they were his lawyers, but they weren't. We know from KZ's filings that Strang said he never saw the email, and neither did Buting, so if the Innocence project did receive that email... did they pass it along? We have no way of knowing that right now. And IIRC, I don't even think Strang/Buting were in touch with SA when MaM came out.

    Here is an article from Jan 11/16
    Professor says 'Making a Murderer' shows justice system flaws beyond Steven Avery case


    Professor Keith Findley, a co-director of the Wisconsin Innocence Project, said his organization is not currently representing Avery, whose supporters say was wrongfully convicted in the 2005 death of 25-year-old photographer Teresa Halbach.

    But Findley said he has talked recently with Avery’s attorneys, Dean Strang and Jerome Buting, and noted the innocence project could revisit Avery’s case in the future, should new evidence come to light.
     
    EvaGreen and Tippy Lynn like this.
  3. scipio_usmc

    scipio_usmc Member

    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    18
    An affidavit is supposed to contain great specificity in regard to each point being made but Zellner always uses ambiguous wording so as to try to create a false impression. It is one of her classic MOs.

    In the Sowinski affidavit instead of stating with specificity what he allegedly told the police dispatcher, Zellner simply drafted the sentence he told everything he just wrote to police. That can't be true though that he told police word for word what he put in his affidavit since his affidavit contains claims he didn't even make in 2016.

    Even in 2016 he was not sure who the people were only that the younger one was not Brendan. The affidavit should detail what supposedly made him decided subsequent to that , that the person was Bobby but doesn't. Nor does it address why he changed his tune from saying police did not obtain his contact info to claim that police took down his contact information and said they would call him back.
     

    Attached Files:

  4. scipio_usmc

    scipio_usmc Member

    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I posted questions I would ask if deposing him.
     
  5. scipio_usmc

    scipio_usmc Member

    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I actually was involved in this case in the beginning and forgot more than most people know. I am the one who answered Zellner's 100 question BS challenge in 1 hour on Reddit. The papers even wrote about my responses. She made a rule that it could not be online and we had to provide our name so she could attack us instead of our arguments. That is her typical MO.

    I have yet to see any rational theory regarding planting of evidence and someone else committing the crime let alone a rational theory supported by evidence.

    In my experience those supporting Avery are blinded by their own biases. MAM did a good job of creating the illusion that Manitowoc did something wrong and that starting point is what many use including Sowinski who wrote in his email that he contacted Avery's lawyers because of the shady things Manitowoc supposedly did yet the reality is nothing they did was improper.

    All you need do is read his affidavit paragraph 7 to see he said he emailed Avery's lawyers.

    This is the closing line of that email that he referenced to Avery's attorneys. So it is pretty obvious MAM made him think Manitowoc was crooked and he wrote in order to try to help establish that point. Interestingly after Zellner made accusations against Bobby that is when he decided he recognized the guy as Bobby though in 2016 he didn't. You do the math...
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Apr 28, 2021
    Cortne likes this.
  6. scipio_usmc

    scipio_usmc Member

    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Zellner is the one claiming he emailed Avery's lawyers. She drafted the affidavit. She also made sure the email address it was sent to is not shown so we have simply the allegation it went to his lawyers from her and that is what one must use.

    Buting and Strang did not handle his appeals, they only handled his trial His appeal was handled by public defenders. After his appeal failed he tried to get the Innocence Project to help him. No one actively helped him until Zellner decided she can get fame from it.
     
  7. scipio_usmc

    scipio_usmc Member

    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    18
    They were his trial attorneys they were not representing him at that point in time. The article should say his former lawyers to be fully accurate.
     
  8. Tippy Lynn

    Tippy Lynn Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    40,772
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've followed this case and have dug in deeper than what was in MAM. I'm not blinded by my own biases. :rolleyes:

    I don't know if SA or BD are guilty or not, but I 100% believe what happened to BD is WRONG and I believe there's reasonable doubt for both SA and BD. IMO they both deserve new trials.
     
  9. missy1974

    missy1974 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,141
    Likes Received:
    31,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I love when it's assumed that we just watched MaM and created pages and pages of threads, and 1000's of posts based on the Netflix series :confused: I can see where some people watched it, made up their mind and didn't look any further. Most of us that are here still posting, are not one of those people. IMO

    I don't think either are guilty, but if I could see something convincing, I could believe SA might be.... Brendan, nope nope nope!
     
  10. missy1974

    missy1974 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,141
    Likes Received:
    31,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Still waiting for a link to the State's motion. But from a screenshot I found, it seems like an odd reason. Says Wisconsin Stat 809.14 does not authorize replies to motion responses without leave from the court.

    This isn't the first time KZ has filed a motion to remand, I have lost count at this point lol And I'm pretty sure she has also filed motions in response to the States motions, so why is this one not allowed? lol I'm guessing this will get remanded, and eventually be added to the list for the Court of Appeals. JMO


    upload_2021-4-28_9-54-35.png
     
    GoBuckeyes and Tippy Lynn like this.
  11. scipio_usmc

    scipio_usmc Member

    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    18
    In my opinion your bias prevents you from facing the facts. Your views seem to be based on emotion more than anything.

    They deserve new trials why? You can't articulate any legal reason that has any validity.

    You don't like it that the law allowed Barb to give police permission to interview him but that is too bad that was the law and feeling bad that such is the law is not a basis to grant a new trial. Not liking the outcome of Dassey's trial because you doubt his guilt so want a new trial is not a legal basis for a new trial either. His own testimony at trial helped sink him you should look at what he stated at trial. Dassey clearly assisted in the destruction of evidence. Whether that was his only participation or more only he and Steven know for certain. There was enough evidence for the jury to convict and they did so. If I had been on the jury I would have convicted him of helping burn the body and destroy evidence but not the murder. But I was not on the jury and just because I would have voted differently is not a basis to want him to get another trial.

    Why should Steven Avery get a new trial? He already had one bite at the apple and the best money could buy could not overcome the mountain of evidence establishing his guilt.

    Avery not only got a fair trial but the things required for Avery to be innocent are so absurd that there is no way realistically they could have occurred. Perhaps you would like to address the elephant in the room:

    Why would an Avery family member bring evidence back to Avery property?
     
    norest4thewicked and Cortne like this.
  12. scipio_usmc

    scipio_usmc Member

    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    18
    It was never allowed but she did it anyway. This time the state is going to hold her feet to the fire and require her to follow procedure instead of continuing with her antics. Her antics have no hope of success legally but she wants to delay the outcome so she can stay in the spotlight in a new MAM season or to keep getting attention from the press and Avery followers.
     
    Cortne likes this.
  13. Tippy Lynn

    Tippy Lynn Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    40,772
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Exactly!!!

    My opinion is that neither SA nor BD are guilty.

    Too many things don't add up including the big payout to SA that went poof.
     
    Traymar, GoBuckeyes and missy1974 like this.
  14. Tippy Lynn

    Tippy Lynn Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    40,772
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's hard for me to dismiss Zellner and the work she does knowing she has won 19 exonerations.
     
    Traymar, GoBuckeyes, j_in_c and 3 others like this.
  15. imstilla.grandma

    imstilla.grandma Believer of Miracles

    Messages:
    13,405
    Likes Received:
    100,386
    Trophy Points:
    113
  16. scipio_usmc

    scipio_usmc Member

    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    18
    What doesn't add up is any way for Steven to be innocent. The argument that the most absurd planting in all of history had to have occurred because you don't believe Avery would kill her and risk his settlement is not a serious argument. The settlement actually provides a reason to kill her after raping her. To avoid her being able to report the rape and not enjoy the settlement he would have a reason to kill her.

    The things you say don't add up are nothing compared to how the conspiracy allegations you support not adding up. This demonstrates how wild the claims truly are:

    Why would an Avery family member bring evidence back to Avery property?

    Not one person who said they believe he is innocent has ever provided a logical motive.
     
    norest4thewicked likes this.
  17. scipio_usmc

    scipio_usmc Member

    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    18
    They were cases where DNA was not around or in its infancy and items had not been DNA tested at the time of the trial but were tested subsequently and exonerated the defendants. In many of those cases others did the heavy lifting and Zellner swooped in at the end. In this case Zellner has posted the most amateurish nonsense I have ever seen. I never saw briefs more poorly written and her arguments are all nonsense. Everytime she files a new claim she makes a new allegation of who did what and simply shows the courts she is making things up and has no solid evidence at all. She filed her motion prematurely and then came up with a new theory after she saw that one was not working. It is all simply a joke at this point.
     
    Cortne likes this.
  18. Tippy Lynn

    Tippy Lynn Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    40,772
    Trophy Points:
    113


    I didn't make an argument stating SA didn't kill TH because he didn't want to risk losing his settlement. However, IMO Manitowoc County had it out for SA and they didn't want to pay him his settlement.

    Is there evidence that TH was raped?
     
    Traymar, GoBuckeyes and badgersmythe like this.
  19. scipio_usmc

    scipio_usmc Member

    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Since her body was burned it is impossible for there to be physical evidence no physical evidence. Brendan admitted she was raped in his statements.

    As for Manitowoc, there is no such thing as a living Manitowoc entity. There is zero evidence that anyone working for Manitowoc had it out for him quite the opposite. Numerous times they cut him slack when it came to domestic disturbances and the like including doing nothing about him having a gun when he should not have. They still didn't do anything about the gun when they saw it when they searched the trailer with him to see if Halbach was being held hostage there. Some of the police even were friendly with the Avery clan and patronized their
    junkyard.

    The lawsuit didn't matter to anyone, the money was not coming from their pocket it was from insurers like all lawsuits. Their interest was no greater than that of any other taxpayer.
     
    norest4thewicked and Cortne like this.
  20. Tippy Lynn

    Tippy Lynn Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    40,772
    Trophy Points:
    113

    If I remember correctly, insurance would only pay $5 million of the settlement the rest would have to come from the city.

    I don’t understand how people can dismiss the fact that SA was railroaded by the very same people that have found all the key evidence in this case. Not to mention, the same people who wrongfully sent SA to prison in the first place were deposed in a $36 million lawsuit. That right there is motivation to have SA convicted.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2021

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