I haven't been following this case too closely lately. Can someone explain to me the chain of logic whereby whether someone searched for porn on a Wednesday vs. a Sunday has anything to do with the guilt of Steven Avery?

The times that the search for violent porn and images of dead and mutilated women helps determine who might have been conducting that search.

Hope this helps!

Before getting to any decision on a new trial, the judge makes a decision on whether there should even be an evidentiary hearing based on the motion, and if there's no evidence supporting the allegations, the judge probably won't even grant that hearing.

Which is why Zellner needed to do better than a porn-search-by-hour histogram.



There is none. Zellner is desperate.

It really doesn't but basically Zellner is claiming the only person that could have made the searches is Bobby because SA was at work during the week. So if someone else could have made the searches it makes her already weak argument even worse.

I dont think that date means what you think it means either that or Zellner made a typo somewhere.

The chart she lists states its in sept of 2006 (not possible since police had the computer by then)

The expert in exhibit B states its sept of 2005, the exact day listed was a sunday.

The exhibit you are talking about has dates that evidence was discovered. I think maybe that april date in the exhibit is the date the computer was seized. Notice it has march for the bullet?

To add more support to this, notice that the burn barrel items on that exhibit have a date of nov 7th, we both know they weren't burned on nov 7th.. That is when they were discovered.

Actually she appears to be retrying the case on Twitter .
She's also gone from total exoneration to retrial.
Btw what do Avery's groupies think of the latest shocking revelation from Zellner?
Is it Ninja Ryan? Or is it now Bobby Dassey?? As was said she's simply flinging crap against a wall & none of it is even landing never mind sticking.

What does this have to do with the question of whether Avery is guilty of the murder of Mrs. Halbach?

You need to link. I don't see any of this in the appeal documents from June or October.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...ts.pdf#page=96

That's the general area, you can browse down from there.

Her computer expert and chart mistakenly say 9/18/2006, but the actual computer records say 9/18/2005.

Later on, her criminal psychology expert says the searches were in 2005 and that based on the porn-search histogram provided by Zellner he's able to conclude only Bobby could have made those searches.

It's all a load of desperate bull****.

Even worse the computer was seized in april of 2006 so the searches could not have been in sept of 2006.

More than one date for downloads since there is more than one image.

One of the dates is on a Wednesday, after both of your suspects are in custody.

Hope this helps!

I was answering the question about why what day of the week the downloads were done was significant. You asked, I answered.

fraleyight speculated that Steven or Brendan could have been responsible for the searches, and I pointed out that the evidence indicates they were not.

If you think this is all off topic, perhaps you could talk to fraleyight, since he brought it up.

I don't know if it's off-topic or not. It doesn't seem relevant to me, but for all I know some new development in the case that I am unaware of may make it significant.

That's why I'm asking for someone to explain the connection.

April 25, 2006 newspaper story:

Investigators have seized a computer used by a teenager accused with his uncle of raping and killing a 25-year-old photographer, the sheriff said Tuesday...

The warrant states investigators believe the computer, seized Friday, may contain images, records and messages that may be relevant to the investigation. Either the state crime lab or a police computer expert will look at it, Pagel said. A dozen recordable CDs also were seized.

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/stat...801aeef80.html

This would indicate the computer was seized on Friday, April 21, 2006.

These images in Exhibit C were accessed on the computer before the police seized it.

Another fine theory shot down by an inconvenient fact.

It is often supposed that an interest in viewing images of dead young women and fantasies about the violent sexual abuse of women might indicate something about that person's behavior.

That would only indicate that these searches were conducted on this computer while in possession of the police.

Corpus vile pretends the defense is not asking for a new trial where evidence can be presented and tested in a legally binding way.

Is corpus vile merely ignorant? Or merely lying?

Sadly for Ken 'Sweaty' Kratz fanboys, there is plenty of evidence in the filing which indicates that the prosecution claims about this crime are false.

For one thing, how does Teresa's ex-boyfriend get hold of her day planner which was in her car the day she disappeared? And why was this information withheld from the defense?

I suppose the motive to withhold vital evidence could be the same as the motive for coercing a 'confession' from a kid with learning disabilities. Occam's Razor and all that.

All this smack talk about Zellner having 'nothing' and being 'desperate' is nonsense, plain and simple.

The only date that is on a Wednesday is in relation to the chart that lists dates that items were seized or discovered. The date that Zellner uses for her chart lists a date of sept 2006 ( I do not remember the exact day but its itt) all of the searches on exhibit b are on the same day that day in sept.

Since the expert says the data compiled is sept 2005 and the computer was already seized by sept 2006, I think its fair to say that Zellner made a typo and that the searches conducted that compiles this data were on a Sunday. Allowing access from both Steven and BD.

As for the date in the article you posted, it is possible the article had the wrong day or that zellner has the wrong day on her chart but no one should conclude that the april date on Zellners chart in exhibit C is the date the searches took place because that is not the same date used for any of the other evidence in that chart nor is it supported by the more detailed information Zellner provides in the search history (exhibit B).

Even if we were to assume the april date in her chart means what you think it means it becomes irrelevant because the detailed search history she provides and uses for her chart is from a date in sept so we do not even know what kind of searches took place in april because she doesn't give us that information.

Yes, but I am referring to Exhibit C. Two of the disturbing images of a dead woman is dated April 19th, in the late morning. Both Steven and Brendan were already in custody.

There could have been a typo. We know typos occur, they are not sinister.
It is apparent that the date the computer was seized was on the 21st of April. If you want to suppose the Associated Press were lying or mistaken, or that the warrant for the seizure had a typo as to the date, or that Calumet County Sheriff Jerry Pagel was wrong about the date or simply lying, you need to do a bit more than just speculate.

The dates for the images in the computer from Exhibit C were prior to the date the computer was seized. So it would seem that these are not dates the police found the images.

If you think the images are irrelevant, then why go to all the trouble to insinuate Steven or Brendan could have done the searches and downloaded the images?

It seems like you are bending over backwards to suggest any evidence that points away from the accused is 'irrelevant', which is a bit of a tell that you've got a heavy bias.

Again, exhibit C only lists one date. A date in april of 2006, in this exhibit there are several other pieces of evidence on this chart all listing dates the evidence was either seized or discovered.

Exhibit B, the exhibit that lists all the searches used to compile data is dated sept of 2005.

Why would Zellner list a date with a different meaning on the same chart and elect to NOT provide searches in april but only searches in september? Then use the april date on her chart and not the september date? What you're saying doesn't make any sense.

Few things about this claim

1) There is no evidence ryan ever had this piece of paper
2) there is no evidence the defense didn't have this piece of paper
3) there is no evidence that the piece of paper was in her car rather than a home office.

All of Zellners conclusions on this matter are unwarranted. If you want to lay out why all 3 of these are more likely the case or even justifiable to conclude I will listen.

...and?

OK. The affidavit also mentions there are several dates for such searches, of which that was one sample.

That some of these images were downloaded when Steven and Brendan had no access to the computer would seem to indicate that there was someone else in the household whose interests ran along those lines.

As it is, despite your insinuation that it could have been Brendan or Steven, there is zero evidence it was. Occam's Razor suggests it wasn't.

You are just making yourself confused by asking all these rhetorical questions.

What I am saying makes perfect sense. The dates on the images I am making reference to are impossible to have been done by the accused.