That's a good find!

Looking again I see that '2006' misstatement comes from Gary Hunt, the defence expert, on p.5 of his affidavit, and it's contradicted by his own data table of the searches. An unhelpful typo.

Hunt's affidavit makes clear that the disturbing images in Exhibit C were cached. They're black-and-white and very low quality because presumably they'd been deleted and recovered. The April dates of file origination, shortly before police seizure of the computer, may in fact indicate when the pictures were deleted (presumably because of the ongoing police investigation and because of the householders' fear of a police search). The April dates presumably do not indicate when the images were originally taken from the internet, or there would be supporting search data.

I understand that multiple persons had access to that computer. The images were not necessarily deleted by the person who originally downloaded them. They may, for instance, have been deleted by someone trying to protect the person who originally downloaded them, if that person were in custody by then. Note that the files established by these deleted images were never subsequently modified or touched. It was a one-shot action. Somebody thought they'd got rid of those images. Without knowing more about the household (and I know nothing about the household), I couldn't say who that was.

Today marks the anniversary of Teresa Halbach's murder.
Please spare a thought for her & her family today. RIP

nah

Sorry,that comment was to normal decent people, not low life poisonous scumbags, like you, so we're good mate.

my guy you got like 5k posts in this thread. you are not normal. you got a serious mental disease.

Do you have a pay pal account, El Twata? I can deposit 50c in it if you like & that way you can call someone who actually gives a rats ass about your opinion of me, i.e. not me.
You're clearly a low life pos, you proved it with your scummy classless monosyllabic comment. Don't whinge about it now just cuz somebody normal called you on your callous crap & actually attempting to justify your lack of empathy by defending yourself via your deflected whinging only has you coming across as a pathetic wussy low life as opposed to just an average one.
You creepy bottom feeder.

Jan 7th, 2016:

It turns out Teresa did leave the Avery property before her disappearance.

That doesn't prove she left? WTF. Bryan saying Bobby told him Teresa left the property? Have you not considered the plethora of alternatives?

1) Bryan misunderstood what bobby told him
2) Bobby was lying to Bryan because the general feel of the family was that avery was innocent and bobby didn't want to single himself out
3) Bryan is lying to get steven free
4) Bryan is remembering incorrectly
5) Bobby didn't see teresa when he left so just assumed she was gone and didn't realize how important the rav 4 was at the time.

Etc...

This is why hearsay is not admissible in court except under very specific circumstances and this is not one of those circumstances.

Bobby Dassey denied it anyway & this was already covered by trial defence.
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...onsibility.pdf

(p19)

So once again Zellner brings noting new to the table, surprise surprise.

Huh? The context this allegation came from was a recorded phone call between SA and BJ from October 24th of THIS YEAR. It's 100% new and is the first of the main points listed in the supplemented motion. It's something that had never been heard (read) until now and supports that a key witness testifying for the state perjured himself.

Your posts haven't changed. At this point, with the hiring of the PR firm to handle MC's PR nightmare being brought to light, you'd think it wise to at least attempt to not look like a shill. Let's have a look at "how you know they are a shill" list, shall we?:

• Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.

• Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges as mere rumors and wild accusations. This method works especially well with a silent media. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.

• Use a straw man. Find a part of the other side's argument which can be destroyed to make your side look good and the opponent look bad. Choose the least important point and make it sound IMPORTANT then destroy it in a way which appears to make EVERYTHING WRONG, while avoiding discussion of the facts.

• Use name calling and ridicule. Associate opponents with derogatory words: 'kooks', 'ignorant', 'irrational', 'crap', 'biased', 'conspiracy theorists', 'worthless', 'cognitive dissonance' and so forth. This makes others back away because even if behind anonymity no one wants to be associated with those and other similar words.

• Hit and Run. Attack and disappear or just ignore any answer. This works well on the Internet where a steady stream of new usernames can make an attack, never discuss and never answer
  Question motives. Twist any fact which could imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda. This avoids discussing issues and puts the accuser on the defensive.

• Invoke authority. Claim you are educated and use enough 'jargon' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

• Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, repeatedly deny they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

• Mysteries have no answer. Point out everything surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, and say it's too complex to solve. Casual followers lose interest.

• Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid the issues by reasoning backwards or with deductive logic that ignores material facts.

• Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely.

• Fit the facts to alternate conclusions

• Change the subject. Find a way to side-track the discussion comments in hopes of turning attention to an easier topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

• If you can't do anything else, taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and make their points seem less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

• Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. No matter the facts presented by an opponent, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to know it (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.)You might have to deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

• False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce facts made up to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

He has 1,499 posts since 2014, as of even date, most of them, I would think, in the Knox thread. You appear to have 28,232 posts since 2012. And projection isn't something that only happens in cinemas.

I just shown you where it was already mentioned & by your special little guys' own defence. Zellner brings nothing new to the table, as usual. It's hardly new & certainly not evidence.


Yes I still agree with the established facts & not conspiracy theories, you're correct.

Who am I shilling for? Precisely? And to what end? Both are in prison, I merely agree with the guilty verdicts and since both are rotting away in prison, why would I need to "shill" and for whom?


??

I asked supporters to provide evidence of a frame up or innocence. Got crickets.
Asked supporters to cite examples of unfair due process. Got no valid examples.
Asked supporters to cite specific instances of coercion. Got zero.
Asked supporters to opine whose argument was better & more on point re the law re 7th circuit. Got ad hominem whinging instead.
You people have two things, Jack being one of 'em and he split town already.

??.
Just gave examples of my discussing issues.

Asked for proof. Got nowt.

Sides? You regard murder as a game? Okay.
I don't need to find a "part" of supporters arguments which are weak they have no credible argument at all. Nor is the onus upon me to prove guilt again on the internet, onus upon groupies to make a plausible case for their tired whacky burblings.
...That admittedly pretty much describes how I feel about you lot to a tee so...moving on

I have discussed, got whinged at by whingers that they totally like could but weren't gonna discuss with me. I've only ignored those on my ignore list

Show me where I've done this
Lol if only. None of those things have been offered. Despite the truth being easy to defend. Just a bunch of tired bs combined with bar raising.

You have no credibility. Hey guess you're right on that repeated thing, huh?
...wat? It's open & shut wrt Avery, slam dunk & sufficient against his scuzzy nephew.


I agree with the courts' guilty verdicts. That's it. I have nothing to work backwards from.

It's already solved. Guess you really are lost in the sauce, eh?

I agree with the established facts, so have no need to "fit" them, whatever that even means...

It's not me who's making supporters look foolish and I totally can't emphasise that one enough there sauce...guess why.

There hasn't been proof presented. It's why both are rotting away in prison with Avery there until he dies & Dassey for the next 31 years, assuming he even gets parole.

.
I asked LOTS of times for proof of a frame up evidence of coercion etc. It's only an impossible demand because there is no proof for innocence coercion or frame up as both are GAF. It's a perfectly reasonable request though, it's only unreasonable to you lot because you're irrational and couldn't provide proof to back up your conspiralunacy if your lives depended on it.

No facts have been provided. Plenty of theories and claims and repetition of failed defence arguments though, to go with the inconsistency & double standards.

No false evidence of guilt and none whatsoever for innocence.

Like I said I only ignore those on my ig list. I stuck you on ig due to your stalking me onto another thread. I only took you briefly off, as like your fellow loon Loudfootz, you seem obsessed with responding to me & in spite of myself I was somewhat curious as to precisely what you were gonna babble about this time. I shouldn't have bothered after reading that insane wall of text, for which you richly deserve going back on ig, so...'bye now. I expect your mate to be along now with his same old same old.

No relevance in pointing out total post count.

Clearly, he was suggesting that CV has an extraordinarily high post count in THIS thread while using a number that is exaggerated for emphasis.

Do we really have to clarify this stuff for you? GTFO if so, no one got time for that sh.t

I don't think you quite understand what Vile is saying. Although the context of this call is "new" when appeal courts talk about "new" evidence they mean something that wasn't available to the defense during trial and appeal.

The fact that Bryan claimed bobby told him that teresa left was indeed available to the defense, so in this context the evidence isn't "new".

Furthermore, this is scott saying bryan told him bobby said x. That is way worse than bryan saying bobby told him x (which the defense had via the police report) so not only is this not new it is actually worse evidence than the defense had access to.

Wrong sir, I fully understand what CV and now you are attempting to do, and that is to invalidate information as being old and therefore irrelevant.

Lets look at what ACTUALLY is being brought forth as new evidence:



Here we have BT stating that TH left, which would be further witness testimony corroborating SA's story and contradicting the state's narrative.

Further, what's interesting here, is that ST strongly suggests that SA, the alleged convicted murdering mastermind, "doesn't know ****."

How does that work?

Which is all very nice - but we also have Barb and Scott who confirm what Bryan's affidavit declares.

Which confirms what Steven always admitted since day one - Teresa left.

Not much point in replying to corpus vile's posts - he's not interested in discussion but simply wants to blab his opinions and not listen to what anyone else has to say.



Anyone who joins a discussion group only to put everyone else on 'ignore' is not to be treated seriously.

You're a moron.

Nonsense - corpus vile only hears crickets because he's put everyone on ignore.

Truth being easy to defend - but pointless to defend to someone who starts out by putting everyone else on 'ignore'.

A true lunatic demands evidence, but ignores the answers.

Corpus vile is truly one of the internet's most idiotic lunatics.

Are you kidding me? How would barb know if Teresa left? She wasn't home. Clealry she thinks avery is innocent, shes stated so several times (well after the doc came out anyway) so of course she thinks teresa left. This isn't evidence of anything other than what barb thinks. There is no indication in that conversation that barb is saying someone told her she left.

Also scott is not even on the phone there, he is talking in the background and when he says "he doesnt know ****" hes talking about bobby.

The first 3 lines in the screen-shot are not about the night of the murder. Its about the internet searches.

I don't think scott is agreeing with barb when he says "thats right" Hes talking in the background about the searches and what bobby knows.

And Barb is just stating her opinion. There is nothing in that conversation that indicates anyone told Barb Teresa left