LOL @ Sutkiewicz 'denying' Zellner's motion after it moved out of her court.

Zellner filed a Notice of Appeal on Nov. 17. Online court records show there was acknowledgment from the Court of Appeals on Nov. 27.

Sutkiewicz issued her memorandum on Nov. 28.

http://www.wbay.com/content/news/Mak...460557543.html

She must be related to Andy Colburn - a day late and a dollar short.

tl;dr Sutkiewicz

Since it's Two-fer Tuesday, here's a second great article, this time from Aaron Keller: "Judge Rips Into Steven Avery’s Attorney, Rejects His Bid For New Trial"

What Zellner is doing is not considered good form. She has created a moving target by continuing to supplement her motion - all while attempting to file a Federal Appeal.

Of course, the Court is not going to be accepting of that.

Despite comments to the contrary, I would believe Zellner did this intentionally. The result may allow the appearance of incompetence, but such simple "mistakes" would be unheard of for an attorney of her record and pedigree.

The fact of the matter is that the whole ballgame is the first appeal filed by S.A. in pro per (long before Zellner was in the case). Leaving the issue of whether it has merit aside, there is about zero chance a pro per defendant is going to be able to put together a competent filing.

Once that motion had been ruled upon, SA's options are severely limited in State Court, with or without an attorney. If you choose to believe that Zellner does not know this going in, that is your right. But, my guess is you would be wrong. The landscape, as it stands, is the same as it was before, with the sole exception that Zellner still has/had to play out the string in the State Court system.

Whether she has something compelling for the Federal Courts is something I don't know, nor is it something I wish to guess at. I would assume, however, that in order to do what she intends to do (from day one of her representation), Zellner has to properly set the stage.

Assuming the above is correct, Zellner has not yet been on that stage, but has taken at least one step closer to it.

Well the fundamental problem here (and what is driving interest in this case) is that the Prosecution has yet to provide a reasonable scenario for the murder, either.

Given that it is not their burden of proof, I would not judge those feeling unconvinced by the prosecution to harshly - indeed, I find it a bit much to declare that in absence of a reasonable scenario* of the murder at trial that those disagreeing have the responsibility of offering what the prosecutor failed to provide.

* I appreciate that those standing by the judgment observe that the judgment was obtained, at least in part, due to the prosecution offering a reasonable narrative of the crime. I don't take issue with such people holding that opinion. However, do not let it cloud the fact that many people (regardless of their knowledge of the case) do not find the prosecution's narrative "reasonable" thus the resulting feeling that the case remains unresolved. In order to have the opinion that "x" remains unsolved does not mean it is necessary to then prove "x." In simpler terms, one can simply say, "I don't agree with that, but I also do not know the answer myself."

A voice of reason.

Something just never sat right with me because the police never followed up on a lot of leads in this case, or leads that I would have expected to be followed up on.

That and the fact that they gave 2 competing interpretations of the evidence, and that the actual trial jury obviously didn’t fully believe one of the narratives, give he was found not guilty of mutilating a corpse.

Edit.

Also, the whole Brendan thing leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

Zellner is now resorting to her bread and butter: trite Kratz-attacks!










Thirsty Thursday may have come early this week.

Has she deleted yet? She tends to tweet either inaccurate crap or what appear to be drunken rants & then promptly deletes them usually.

PoorSkillz is now resorting to his bread and butter: trite Zellner-attacks!

You folks never get tired of falling on your faces, do you?

I would have thought 'mutilating a corpse' would have been the easiest charge to pin on Steven Avery.

I wonder how people can justify their hate for Zellner. What scandal did I miss.

A big scandal. She is representing a person who might be in jail unjustly. What scumbag.

Imagine if someone found some evidence to clear SA for the rape....., oh yeh, that already happened, like 5 years after the manitowac police ignored that an inmate (the guilty person) confessed to a rape in Manitowac county and that another person was wrongfully in jail for it.

For you who think booth SA and BD is guilty;

HOW do BDs story make any sense? I.e Halbach getting throat cut and more in SAs trailer, but no evidence at all to support that?

Ah. "Haters". Never heard that one before in other murder cases by advocates of the killers. It's all "haters" & "guilters" being all um hatey and guilter-ey...

You really think that the people here advocating for SA think he is guilty? Because you say "by advocates of the killers".

I don’t think anyone is advocating that SA is innocent.

We’re talking about a broken legal process

Yeah & I also said right before that "before in other murder cases " & there's been plenty of advocacy for the murderers itt anyway.

But my actual point is, that opining that people simply "hate" Zellner (Or God forbid Cuddly Steve & Innocent Brendan) as well as using non-existent words such as "guilter" only highlights how the argument is emotive but has nothing to support anything such as innocence or a frame up with substance.

Some seem to think so from what I've inferred from some of the comments itt.

For which no valid examples have been provided wrt these specific trials. Nobody is saying the system is perfect, Avery's exoneration for rape is a good example.

But there have been no valid examples of an unfair due process for Avery or Dassey put forward by anyone making such claims.

To clarify when the cops arrested Dassey, did they say "Brendan Dassey you're under arrest...even though we've "no evidence at all" to actually arrest you on"?

Regarding Brendan: If you were present at the crime scene and helped destroy the evidence (knowingly or not), things will not end well for you if you then repeatedly confess to the crime.

Regarding Zellner: I don't hate her, but I have little respect for her and believe her actions in this case (especially her brash tweets and constant legal ****-ups) warrant mockery.

Nobody hates her. Certain people itt are simply conflating contempt for her behaviour in certain respects & disdain for her regarding her apparent ignorance of the law & protocol with actual hatred.
Just another deflective argument ultimately.

An innocence scenario requires that The Real Killer (copyright, trademark, world rights reserved) committed the crime at a different time and location which simply don't need to be determined because reasons, and then the police -- and only the police, no one else -- discovered the crime scene and then the police instantly decided not to call it in and launch a normal investigation per procedure, but to carry out a bizarre and baroque attempt to plant the evidence -- including a dismembered and burnt body and a vehicle -- on Avery's property without him noticing, and adding lots of little details while they were at it, because that's what the innocence narrative requires them to have done.

And the Illuminati -- I beg your pardon, the police -- did this because of Avery's lawsuit against the county. Which was settled shortly afterwards by the county's insurers in the usual manner. It's not as if the police officers were even liable, and Avery's wrongful conviction was mainly due to mistaken identification by the victim. So the whole idea makes no sense at all, except to the usual Murderers' Fan Club.

Exactly. In short, an innocence scenario requires a tinfoil hat.

I'm not at all sure that the state -- or, over here, the Crown -- is obligated in that regard. Murder often makes no sense except to the person who commits it. Police and prosecutors often do not know exactly why or how it happened, and it's unreasonable to suppose that they should know. They only have to indicate the reasons for believing that the defendant committed the crime.

In Avery's case there is a fairly well attested motive of sexual sadism, which Griesbach and others have spoken about, and there are obvious steps by which Avery sought to lure the victim to his property (and cover his traces by making bogus calls to her phone which he knew wouldn't be answered, like Amanda Knox).

It isn't obligated. A blow by blow account for murder isn't required by a court. How would anyone be able to do so for say the West Murders where some victims weren't found until decades later, for example?

Not knowing precisely how the murder occurred doesn't nullify the evidence against Avery or Dassey. It's one of the reasons the prosecution can change narratives or don't have to be 100% accurate.

This is just more bar raising just as was done for Amanda Knox & has also happened right down to the same specific arguments for other cases, high profile or otherwise.