On top of that, Zellner has presented no proof that Bobby searched for anything.

The searches were made from the family computer which the entire Dassey family had access to (including Brendan), and the only account on it was "HP_Owner".

There is no evidence that Bobby made those searches. If anything, the frequent misspellings point to Brendan.


Furthermore, the only image of TH found on the computer is the one from the search poster, including that photo side-by-side with one of Steven, which indicates that it is from after she was found on the Avery property.





It's just more of the same conclusory allegations that will get Zellner nowhere in court.

Interesting that they're throwing family under the bus again though.

Except Bobby has a different schedule than everyone else in the household, and these searches were conducted while everyone else was at work or at school.

Sadly, it all sticks because **** sticks to ****. And the case against Steven Avery is ****.

For example, Teresa's day planner she had with her on the day she disappeared ends up in her ex-boyfriend's possession. And this information is withheld from the defense.

Just more evidence the police/prosecution ignored obvious suspects to go after the guy they had a vendetta against.

Some of the technology used to find the evidence she has presented wasn't available until 2016. If the judge doesn't know that is 'new' wrt the trial in 2007 then she is bad at maths. And people who burble about how this isn't new evidence are apparently likewise intellectually challenged.

Too bad Ken Kratz fans haven't read the filings and learned these facts for themselves.

So Zellner claims, yet she provides no actual evidence that this is the case.

She does provide a porn histogram though:




(Note that the only evidence of searches she actually shows are from 9/18/2005 - a Sunday.)

[QUOTE=57 On Red;53021824]

Agree.


Ok

[QUOTE=golfnutt;53021762][QUOTE=corpus vile;53018833][QUOTE=golfnutt;53017628] You said it wasn't proven as if their trials were still ongoing& as if I was merely opining it. I'm merely correcting you. Nor am I interested in your comments re his last trial. I've asked several times for any objectively valid examples of how the courts erred & got nothing of substance in response. I don't expect any trends to be broken in this regard.



It's true you have nothing. Zellner's new/amended/asking court to reconsider/whatever she's calling it motion contradicts her client's own statements and now she has newer shinier suspects still.
It's a crock. So yeah you guys have nothing except fervent belief, inconsistency & flat out assertions.
I'm sure Barn is pleased no end at Zellner's latest suspect though...

Or shown any serious flaws regarding the evidence or investigation.

Really? We didn't have blood spatter experts, the ability to separate substances on small objects or to determine search history prior to 2016?

Lol ridiculous

The evidence is to be presented at trial.

That seems to be how this whole 'court system' thingy appears to work.

You'll have to ask the expert witness, preferably in a courtroom setting.

Not sure why prosecution fans should be afraid of doing that.

Other than withholding evidence from the defense and ignoring evidence that didn't point at the guy whose guts they hated because he was suing them?

So, as I said, Zellner "provides no actual evidence" to support her claim that Bobby was the one making those searches.

Unfortunately for Steven, the way this "court system thingy" works is that by not providing the alleged evidence to back up the accusations in her motion, Zellner reduces her chances of ever presenting the alleged evidence in court.


I'll likely continue ignoring your future posts again, so do not expect a future response.

Yes, the motion is laying out what is to be tested in court.

She's no Kenny Kratz who prefers to make the case in a press conference.

Had you taken the trouble to read the motion, you'd see that Zellner's on solid legal ground backed up by court precedents.

Truly a model of how to conduct a debate. Say your piece and run away crying...

Actually, no that is not how this works. She needs to present the evidence to the judge and the judge needs to decide if Avery is warranted a new trial.

Do you really think child porn and violent searches on a sunday from a family computer at a house avery frequented are going to be worthy of such a request?

Its not about being afraid, its about only allowing 2nd trials to those who deserve it. If we gave everyone a second trial just for ****s and giggles the states would have to spend twice as much money to prove a 2nd time people are guilty. What if avery got a 2nd trial and was found guilty again? Would you then ask for a 3rd? If your answer is no, then why should we allow the 2nd unless there is new evidence that could have changed the result of the 1st trial? If your answer is yes, then when do we stop giving avery new trials?

There is no credible evidence anything was kept from the defense. Furthermore, a brady violation requires credible evidence to be held from the defense. This CD isn't enough because the contents that were on that CD (assuming the state ever had it and also assuming it wasn't provided to the defense both accusations lacking any evidential basis) are not the reason why the detectives concluded initially that zipplers was visited after averys.

Oh for ****s sakes. Are you ****ing kidding me? That is literally all she has been doing.

First of all, you are incorrect: for example, more than one image was downloaded on April 19, 2006 (which was a Wednesday, not a Sunday as you falsely claim).

https://www.dayoftheweek.org/?m=Apri...#axzz4wTayNxrR

At that time Steven Avery was under arrest, and unable to visit the Dassey household - so your insinuation that he might be responsible is just plain impossible.

And guess what? Brendan Dassey was also in jail at that time, and unable to visit home to make spelling errors in computer searches.

Another fail on your ignorant 'theory'.

If the judge is as simpleminded as that, she will no doubt agree with you.

Zellner is asking for a new trial, where the evidence can be presented in a legally meaningful context.

That is what she's been doing.

You are the one begging her to try the case in the court of public opinion.

FFS try and get a little self awareness!

Evidence?

So you want the defense to prove a negative?

Well, I suppose whatever desperate maneuver you can dream up works for you!

As for this 'proof' you keep demanding - Zellner points out for the slow ponies that the courtroom is the proper place to determine legal facts:

Mr. Avery's motion for relief was filed pursuant to Wis. Stats. PP 974.06 which provides that unless the motion and the files and records of the action conclusively show that the person is entitled to no relief, the court shall grant a prompt hearing. Wis. Stats. PP 974.06(3)(c) (emphasis added). The statute requires that the circuit court hold an evidentiary hearing when the movant states sufficient material facts that, if true, would entitle the defendant to relief. State v. Allen, 2004 WI 106, pp 14, 274 Wis. 2d 568, 682 N.W. 2d 433. In making this determination, the court must assume the facts alleged in the motion to be true. Id. at pp 12 (citing State v. Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d 303, 310-311, 548 N.W. 2d 50 (2004)); State v. Zielhi, 2017 WI App 56, pp 22, 2017 WL 3209410 ()"Because the circuit court did not hold evidentiary hearing on Zielhi's motion, we will assume that the factual allegations in her motion are true.") Conversely, factual disputes may only be resolved at an evidentiary hearing. State v. Hampton, 2004 WI 107, pp 70, 274 Wis. 2d 379, 683 N.W. 2d 14 ("[t]he State is free to present its evidence to meet its burden of persuasion at the evidentiary hearing. ...there is a genuine issue of material fact which must be resolved at an evidentiary hearing.")

Yes, as far as I can determine this was not a Sunday as you falsely asserted in you desperate attempt to blame Steven and/or Brendan for everything that went wrong in Wisconsin.

It is found in exhibit C of the motion.

A pity you didn't read it - you wouldn't feel so foolish now.

You're assuming this appeal is just for the LULZ.



As has been shown, there is plenty of new evidence which fully justifies the efforts made on behalf of these American citizens languishing in prison.

The State is already spending its resources fighting the case. So another failed argument from you based on your bias against the defendants.