New Witness Comes Foward

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.


1) He wasn't railroaded. The victim identified him but was wrong. Everyone believed the victim until DNA testing proved she was wrong. Avery's uncle was a cop at the time and took part in the arrest. The sheriff didn't even know Steven Avery before the rape occurred so claims he was out to get Avery are ridiculous.

2) The people who investigated the 1985 case and prosecuted it were all dead or retired by the time of the Halbach case. Neither Colborn nor Lenk were even police at the time of the investigation let alone worked the case.

3) It is false there was a$5 million insurance limit. Furthermore at the time of the case the average lawsuit settlement was far less than that and he had no evidence of any wrongdoing that violated his civil rights to even warrant a judgment. He was suing Manitowoc for $18 million (a highly inflated figure for his economic losses) to get a decent settlement. Lawyers always pick big numbers and never realize them. The huge judgments that exist now were unheard of back in 2005.

4) The state of Wisconsin provided money to innocent inmates though not convicted for any misconduct but it was not a large amount. That is why they always make up BS to sue in order to get a nuisance settlement. Steven Avery got a nuisance settlement. If his claim were actually worth far more than the $400k he got then his lawyers would not have settled for such a small amount and would have held out. The standard excuse used is that Avery settled so he could pay his trial lawyers. The reality is that he could have gotten a loan or sold the recovery rights to raise money and if the case were actually worth millions his lawyers would have wanted that because they were getting part of the recovery. The depositions were actually not favorable to Avery and that is why they settled. The settlement value could have gone down if they had completed discovery. The fact the sheriff didn't even know Steven Avery was not helpful to the claim he was biased against him.

5) There is zero evidence that any police in 2005 cared about Avery winning money in his case let alone had some misinformed idea that a conviction would make Steven Avery's civil case go away. He was free to pursue that case even while in prison. The only thing that would extinguish the case would have been killing him because the civil rights case in question was not among the kinds of cases that would be able to be taken over by an estate in Wisconsin. police would have no greater interest in the financial outcome of the case than any other taxpayer.
 
Last edited:
It wasn't one. It was BoD and another 'unidentified' male in his 50s-60s with a long grey beard. He hid behind the door as the witness drove by so he wasn't able to identify who it was.
I've always been kinda suspicious about BD step dad. I know the Producers and Directors could edit the show to make us feel one way or another but finding the key in middle of floor after couple other cops had searched his room and don't find anything but then one of the cops listed in Avery's lawsuit against the Police walks in and it's right there. Plus the bullet in garage. I don't know who was involved but if I listed people I find questionable Brandons step father is top of list and Her ex boyfriend and friends that somehow got on property to search was suspicious. Way to many things don't add up to me for it to be if I was on that jury to say they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. Plus that video of the "interview" with Brandon. Minor without any parent or representative. Ridiculous
 
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?

Respectfully, the elephant in the room? There's a whole herd. One of those elephants is your previous involvement on the case early on, as you called it. Would you kindly share in what capacity you were involved and what information you can add that points to the guilt of SA and BD? We're trying very hard to evaluate what you're sharing. But thus far, you've accused several members of being blinded by emotion, but we're still waiting for actual evidence or facts to emerge between your lines of emotion and insults; although, I don't think we're any bothered by them. Still, we would like your input on any evidence. Most WS members have the ability to consider information objectively. All you need do is give this group the opportunity by offering facts for consideration.

It's fine that the pivotal point for you that clinches their guilt is that Halbach's remains were allegedly (no photographs exist because none were taken) found in the fire pit. That's what seems to clinch it for you, that and your question, which I'll get to in a moment. The things that have convinced you are fine, but some of what you have mentioned is problematic for some group members. For example, Halbach's remains allegedly found in the fire pit. I find it suspicious that no pictures were taken of the remains in the pit or as they were being gathered. Further, iirc, they weren't found on the first search of the pit. For me, chain of custody issues arise when evidence is not documented as it was found. In this case that would have been photographs when the remains were initially found and photographs as they were gathered, along with the names of everyone in the chain of custody, right down to everyone who sifted through even a thimble-full of the contents of the pit.

You keep asking, "Why would an Avery family member bring evidence back to Avery property?" You've challenged the entire group and apparently many others with this question. Absent an answer to that question, you seem totally convinced of SA's guilt.

First, your question presumes that a murderer is thinking logically and being rational. If they were in a logical frame of thought and being rational, they wouldn't be committing murder. It's MOO, that attempting to apply rationality to a murderous mind is a fool's errand, as the saying goes.

Second, the question assumes that SA can only be innocent if another Avery family member did it. There are several alternate perpetrator theories that do not involve an Avery family member. In those scenarios, why wouldn't the perpetrator bring evidence back to the Avery property?

If you'd kindly tone down the personal attacks about emotion, logic, etc. and just share factual information about this case, not about Zelner's style or abilities, but about the case. We're trying to hear you.

I'm sorry that you didn't find Zelner to be a likeable individual. But your experience with her is just that, your experience. It doesn't impact my opinions on the case. Even more so since you were involved early on, I'd like to hear the evidence that you have.

Concerning wanting a new trial for BD. I recognize that there are legal statues that govern when a new trial is indicated. I also recognize that those were put in place to keep the legal system from grinding to a halt under the weight of new trials, not to protect the innocent who have been wrongly convicted. Innocent people being incarcerated, or the prospect thereof, should concern EVERY American. MOO
 
Respectfully, the elephant in the room? There's a whole herd. One of those elephants is your previous involvement on the case early on, as you called it. Would you kindly share in what capacity you were involved and what information you can add that points to the guilt of SA and BD? We're trying very hard to evaluate what you're sharing. But thus far, you've accused several members of being blinded by emotion, but we're still waiting for actual evidence or facts to emerge between your lines of emotion and insults; although, I don't think we're any bothered by them. Still, we would like your input on any evidence. Most WS members have the ability to consider information objectively. All you need do is give this group the opportunity by offering facts for consideration.

It's fine that the pivotal point for you that clinches their guilt is that Halbach's remains were allegedly (no photographs exist because none were taken) found in the fire pit. That's what seems to clinch it for you, that and your question, which I'll get to in a moment. The things that have convinced you are fine, but some of what you have mentioned is problematic for some group members. For example, Halbach's remains allegedly found in the fire pit. I find it suspicious that no pictures were taken of the remains in the pit or as they were being gathered. Further, iirc, they weren't found on the first search of the pit. For me, chain of custody issues arise when evidence is not documented as it was found. In this case that would have been photographs when the remains were initially found and photographs as they were gathered, along with the names of everyone in the chain of custody, right down to everyone who sifted through even a thimble-full of the contents of the pit.

You keep asking, "Why would an Avery family member bring evidence back to Avery property?" You've challenged the entire group and apparently many others with this question. Absent an answer to that question, you seem totally convinced of SA's guilt.

First, your question presumes that a murderer is thinking logically and being rational. If they were in a logical frame of thought and being rational, they wouldn't be committing murder. It's MOO, that attempting to apply rationality to a murderous mind is a fool's errand, as the saying goes.

Second, the question assumes that SA can only be innocent if another Avery family member did it. There are several alternate perpetrator theories that do not involve an Avery family member. In those scenarios, why wouldn't the perpetrator bring evidence back to the Avery property?

If you'd kindly tone down the personal attacks about emotion, logic, etc. and just share factual information about this case, not about Zelner's style or abilities, but about the case. We're trying to hear you.

I'm sorry that you didn't find Zelner to be a likeable individual. But your experience with her is just that, your experience. It doesn't impact my opinions on the case. Even more so since you were involved early on, I'd like to hear the evidence that you have.

Concerning wanting a new trial for BD. I recognize that there are legal statues that govern when a new trial is indicated. I also recognize that those were put in place to keep the legal system from grinding to a halt under the weight of new trials, not to protect the innocent who have been wrongly convicted. Innocent people being incarcerated, or the prospect thereof, should concern EVERY American. MOO

Please excuse the misspelling of statutes. It currently reads statues, and I am unable to edit. Thank you.
 
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.
Really? She never follows procedures?
 
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.[/QUOT
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.
I’m sorry about the horror you witnessed, but your memory of the perp. is linked to trauma. Witnessing people push a vehicle isn’t the same thing, IMHO.
 
[QUOTE="The police ignored his tip. Steven would not have been convicted if this evidence had been known."[/QUOTE]

She said that about the bullet too in MaM2, yet we still are waiting on that hearing to become a fact.
There should be a recording of that call, IF indeed this witness did call back in 2005 as he claims. Unfortunately that call hasn't come up yet in all the FOIA requests made for the Dispatch Calls (which have been FOIA'd in 2019; by Milbillie)
But then again it's not unheard of for these cops to create own versions of events, like they did with the phone records, and the fly-over.

Any Denny suspect has been 'ignored' by the state (and the court). Ignoring things is a strategy, which often leads to good results (for the state), as long nobody goes digging and results are accepted as presented, than they are fine. Otherwise hide it as long as possible!
 
I certainly wouldn't treat any of the so-called 'admissions' from the interviews with Brendan as reliable information.

JMOOO
 
I’m sorry about the horror you witnessed, but your memory of the perp. is linked to trauma. Witnessing people push a vehicle isn’t the same thing, IMHO.

My memory would be much better than a paperboy who had no reason to pay attention to what was going on. Frankly his claims are nonsense and it is clear to me he is completely full of crap form start to finish.
 
Really? She never follows procedures?

Nope and the appeal court confirmed it in the rejection of all her nonsense including noting that she misrepresented facts. Zellner is a clown who used nonlawyers to feed her most of her arguments.
 
Nope and the appeal court confirmed it in the rejection of all her nonsense including noting that she misrepresented facts. Zellner is a clown who used nonlawyers to feed her most of her arguments.

Read the decision and decide for yourself if what she presented was nonsense.
 
My memory would be much better than a paperboy who had no reason to pay attention to what was going on. Frankly his claims are nonsense and it is clear to me he is completely full of crap form start to finish.

But ... but ... but Bobby was pushing a green SUV toward the ASY at 1:30am with no shirt on. Must be true and Zellner will present the next appeal to the Circuit Court when she figures out where they were pushing it from.
 
Respectfully, the elephant in the room? There's a whole herd. One of those elephants is your previous involvement on the case early on, as you called it. Would you kindly share in what capacity you were involved and what information you can add that points to the guilt of SA and BD? We're trying very hard to evaluate what you're sharing. But thus far, you've accused several members of being blinded by emotion, but we're still waiting for actual evidence or facts to emerge between your lines of emotion and insults; although, I don't think we're any bothered by them. Still, we would like your input on any evidence. Most WS members have the ability to consider information objectively. All you need do is give this group the opportunity by offering facts for consideration.

It's fine that the pivotal point for you that clinches their guilt is that Halbach's remains were allegedly (no photographs exist because none were taken) found in the fire pit. That's what seems to clinch it for you, that and your question, which I'll get to in a moment. The things that have convinced you are fine, but some of what you have mentioned is problematic for some group members. For example, Halbach's remains allegedly found in the fire pit. I find it suspicious that no pictures were taken of the remains in the pit or as they were being gathered. Further, iirc, they weren't found on the first search of the pit. For me, chain of custody issues arise when evidence is not documented as it was found. In this case that would have been photographs when the remains were initially found and photographs as they were gathered, along with the names of everyone in the chain of custody, right down to everyone who sifted through even a thimble-full of the contents of the pit.

You keep asking, "Why would an Avery family member bring evidence back to Avery property?" You've challenged the entire group and apparently many others with this question. Absent an answer to that question, you seem totally convinced of SA's guilt.

First, your question presumes that a murderer is thinking logically and being rational. If they were in a logical frame of thought and being rational, they wouldn't be committing murder. It's MOO, that attempting to apply rationality to a murderous mind is a fool's errand, as the saying goes.

Second, the question assumes that SA can only be innocent if another Avery family member did it. There are several alternate perpetrator theories that do not involve an Avery family member. In those scenarios, why wouldn't the perpetrator bring evidence back to the Avery property?

If you'd kindly tone down the personal attacks about emotion, logic, etc. and just share factual information about this case, not about Zelner's style or abilities, but about the case. We're trying to hear you.

I'm sorry that you didn't find Zelner to be a likeable individual. But your experience with her is just that, your experience. It doesn't impact my opinions on the case. Even more so since you were involved early on, I'd like to hear the evidence that you have.

Concerning wanting a new trial for BD. I recognize that there are legal statues that govern when a new trial is indicated. I also recognize that those were put in place to keep the legal system from grinding to a halt under the weight of new trials, not to protect the innocent who have been wrongly convicted. Innocent people being incarcerated, or the prospect thereof, should concern EVERY American. MOO

You have no idea what you are taking about from start to finish. There were photos taken of the site that was excavated and photos of the remains they removed from the site. Your claim there are no photos is false. The gripe of conspiracy theorists is that there are no photos showing the bones before police touched them which is insane since the fragments were under ash.

Saying that a killer might be thinking so irrationally as to take evidence back to their property when there is no reason to is not a serious one.

Nor is it a serious argument to claim that Avery relatives who had nothing at all to do with making the appointment that day magically decided to rape and kill a woman they had no idea was coming and didn't even know.

The evidence in this case is overwhelming and the hoops people go through to try to pretend someone else may have done it are so extensive that it reveals they have no leg to stand on and simply want to play games.
 
Read the decision and decide for yourself if what she presented was nonsense.

I not only read the decision I looked at the claims in detail years before they finally decided it. All her claims are so pathetic it boggles the mind. She changes her claims every time she posts because she is just throwing crap at the wall trying to gain attention from her fans who frankly should be her worst critics but are not because she posts ramblings they made up.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
206
Guests online
1,255
Total visitors
1,461

Forum statistics

Threads
596,871
Messages
18,055,287
Members
230,119
Latest member
Snadine88
Back
Top