It's just one more item on a long list of weak evidence produced by the prosecution.

The point is there is no reliable evidence this bullet ever struck anyone, due to the contamination in the forensics lab.

Yes, some good stuff here, too. More evidence of a ****ed up investigation from the get go.

It's protocol for the defense to get all the specific material - I suppose this is another 'deviation' from the safeguards from the prosecution?

That is your claim. But the fact is you don't know what Scott was commenting on and you are speculating.

The thing that is interesting about the SIKIKEY letter is that it appears to have been produced before the public knew about the alleged cremation of Teresa, which would seem to indicate it comes from someone with inside knowledge.

Regarding this item, it now becomes clear that the day planner already discussed was in Teresa's car when she was making her appointments that day.

https://i.imgur.com/BnHFXUU.jpg

Thus it is incriminating evidence that her ex-boyfriend is found to have it in his possession after her disappearance.

1)What does that picture prove supposedly? Are you saying because you can't see dust there is no dust?
2) The defense did get the information. That is my point.
3) Normally when I am on the phone with someone I do not constantly demand to talk to them and ask for the phone. Do you? When you're talking to someone do you tell them you need the phone to talk to them? The only speculation, is that scott was on the phone yet was constantly asking for the phone. Nowhere in that conversation does scott directly respond to anything Steven says and nowhere does steven directly respond to anything scott says.
4)There is no indication the sikikey letter was written before public knowledge. The police report states it was discovered on 11/10 in the evening. After it was reported in the media the same day. Zellner is just assuming it was written on 11/9 and hasn't provided her reasons for assuming this
5) Nowhere in that affadavit from Steven S does it indicate Teresa was in her car. I have already showed you that she was most likely home when all these calls took place. If she wasn't home, she certainly returned home by the time she started going to appointments because she had addresses faxed to her.

Zellz with yet another amended motion today this time "an amendment to the previously filed second amendment to the motion to reconsider"

https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...sideration.pdf

If anyone had any doubt that CV is either a paid shill or a Nazi, just look at this post.

No sane person would believe that KZ is a disgrace to the profession, regardless of their thoughts about the SA case. This is actually quite ridiculous at this point and I think mods should really look into this. Check IPs, posting times, etc. There's just no doubt PoorSkillz and CV are shilling and possibly fraleyight, but he might just be naive or otherwise motivated to be here? Not sure....

Anyhow, for the integrity of the forums, the shilling, astroturfing, and whatever else is going on, this is just absurd. These guys take time out of their lives to log on and post little snippets and jabs at a defense attorney in this case? LOL, why would anyone do that? They are just really big into making sure SA stays in jail? Come on....

Saucy. I viewed your post &decided to take you off ig again as you're quite frankly the gift which keeps on giving



Except her fellow legal professionals/colleagues that is
https://twitter.com/MCGriesbach/stat...83129654276096

Gosh...where to even begin with that one. No wonder you guys are big on conspiracies
Again for whom are we "shilling" for precisely & for which end, considering both murderers are in Oz at present trying to avoid getting shanked? And Cuddly Steve's been denied a retrial? And Zellner's motions are contrary BS & won't be considered as the very cases she cites attest to? As does SCOTUS?
So why would we need to "shill"?

Trust me Saucy Zells has pretty much guaranteed Avery's gonna die in prison & has done a far better job of ensuring that than anyone here ever could.

In spite of your earlier stalking me onto other threads like some weird & addled Travis Bickle/John Hinckley type nutjob, I'm taking you off ignore, due to your comedic value.

says "professionals" (plural) then links to a single person who happens to be the deputy district attorney for Manitowoc County, Griesbach's twitter. What a loser.

You think KZ considers Greisbach to be a colleague?

Wait a minute, you three ding dongs are in here spewing your "propaganda" left and right about how two random documentarians conspired with Netflix to ruin a town's law enforcement and reputation while trying to set a raping, mutilating murderer free.

And we are the conspiracy theorists? LOL.

Not sure what you are talking about. Don't think I've ever seen any other thread you are a part of, nor have I replied to anything you've posted. Have I?

We have photographic proof of thick dust from the concrete on the floor, and no dust on the bullet.

That is your unverified claim. On the other hand we have Zellner who is prepared to prove her claim in a court of law.

AVERY: And he said he [sic] left. She left.
SCOTT TADYCH: That's right.
BARBARA TADYCH: Yeah. She left.

You are claiming this is not a direct response to what Steven is saying? That Scott is just randomly shouting out things for no particular reason?

In any case Barb's remarks on this tape confirm Bryan Dassey's affidavit.

The police did not state that the letter was found on the evening of November 10. That is the time that Dedering contacted Green Bay Police about the letter.

You are only claiming Zellner is making an assumption. However, since Zellner is prepared to prove her claim in a court of law that carries more weight than your unsubstantiated guess.

Wrong:

During our conversation on October 31, 2005, Teresa told me that she was currently in the Sheboygan area handling other appointments in or around Sheboygan. I recall that Teresa told me that she either had just finished an appointment in Sheboygan or was heading to her last appointment in Sheboygan.

There is no evidence Teresa was at home during this phone call or in the previous one which required her to pull over to make notes on her day planner. We have now two sworn statements that Teresa was on the road, plus indication that she took notes of calls on the day planner while en route.

Since Teresa was in the habit of making notes on her day planner while in her car, there is no reason to presume she would leave her day planner at home.

You think they did a good job, but simply decided not to use a piece of potentially exculpatory evidence?

Funny that Griesbach is being touted as a stellar source of professional rectitude when he's already written something like four books trying to cash in on Steven Avery.

If anyone's in this for fame and fortune, it's Griesbach.

It's like I've always said - scratch a conspiracy debunker and you'll find a conspiracy theorist.



You'll get used to corpus vile's paranoia - it's a perfect complement to his treating everything like it's some kind of movie.

This guy is a real person? He posts in other forums regarding murders and the like and thinks people are stalking him?

"Fuh-realz"?

Gosh there's a change of attitude. I thought you guys really liked ole Mike when he helped free Cuddly Steve, now he's a loser? Tsk tsk.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/s...t-says-7294941

So was he a loser when helping to exonerate Cuddly Steve? Or just now cuz he disagrees with your jaw droppingly implausible narrative? Which is it??


Saucy? He is a colleague as both are legal professionals & you're doing it again...conflating your opinion/dreams with facts/reality? You really need to stop doing that.


Please explain how agreeing with multiple court of law's verdicts is "spewing propaganda". Are the court verdicts which we agree with "propaganda" too? Or judicial truth?

...Please cite verbatim where I or indeed anyone said what you just babbled. I said they wanted to make a buck & had no qualms engaging in Innocence Fraud to do so. Hence their $3mil pad.

...Yes? You think we're paid shills for Manitowoc LE or...someone & this isn't even including your Oliver Stone style labyrinthine conspiracy involving Manitowoc LE, possibly other Wisconsin LE agencies, the courts, the juries the Eff Bee Eye, RH, Tadych, Bobby Dassey & whoever else you completely divorced from reality cultists are gonna add this week to your ever expanding list of anyone but Cuddly Steve & Lovable Bren.

Yeah Saucy. You have.
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...ostcount=27930

You even caused one of your fellow advocates to admonish you over it
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...ostcount=27941
That jog your memory there Travis?
That said I'm willing to give you some leeway as let's face it Saucy you prolly stalk a bunch of peeps and lose track of some of the undoubted many who have incurred your ire.

Anyway can you tell me why you're erroneously & fallaciously equating a failed defence argument with actual exculpatory evidence such as you did with your false insistence the .22 shell was contaminated?
Ta mate.

Holy sh*t, you're a fcuking psycho.

That was my post almost a year ago and you've equated this to stalking you.

You actually spent part of your day creating this ^^ fanatical post babbling on about something and then posted it in a poker forum that happens to have an off topic thread dedicated to a documentary about some injustices that occurred in po-dunk, Wisconsin that you have dedicated your life to trying to disprove, even though you already have the verdict.

You should stop doing that.

Umm...I was calling you a loser.

And no, when he was doing his job in getting a DNA exoneree out of prison, he was not a loser. It was only at the point he decided to profit off of the injustices that occurred here by perpetuating lies and falsehoods that I would call him a loser.

ok.

Reasonable to conclude that you are posting here to try to make people believe that the documentarian's purpose for the film was to profit, and so had to engage in illegal activities you refer to as "innocence fraud" in order to accomplish this? "Propaganda" is in quotes because it falls under fraleyight's definition of the word.

Its important to note that Scott did not talk at all up until this point, but if you read the transcript it is clear he was not responding to avery at all.

So you can have your question answered. I have highlighted in green yellow what ST was obviously responding to since you are apparently incapable of deducing it yourself.

BT: He (bobby) wasn't always home
SA: Well you-Well most of the time he(bobby) was home
BT: NO
ST: [Background] (this is listed in brackets in the transcript. Implying that scott was not near the phone "He (bobby) Doesn't know ****"
SA:And he said he left. She left
ST:That's right
BT: Yea. She left

Side note: Barbs opinion is irrelevant. We know she thinks Teresa left. How else would she think Dassey is innocent? How is it evidence that Teresa left because Barb thinks so? Barb wasn't home!

But the conversation continues and it becomes even more clear that ST is not on the phone nor is he aware of what is being said on the other end. If you notice, everytime he says something it is in response to what barb says, not steven.

SA:Yea. I'm just going where evidence go. I told her, I said: Go where the evidence goes. I don't care where it goes, who it leads to, I don't care.
BT: Well LIke I said, you'll have a dead sister.
SA:Well, thats why I told you always to do something. Nobody wanted to do nothing.
BTo what? What didn't we do?
SA: Well, lets put it this way, why is, uh, why were you over by the yard all this time and-and chasing them off the property.
ST...I wanna talk to him
BT: I wasn't
ST: I wanna talk to him
SA: What do you mean
ST: Put the phone down here. I wanna talk to him.
BT: I wasn't
ST: I wanna talk to him
SA: You went over there when she was over there.
ST: I wanna talk to him
BT: What do you mean? I never even seen her.
SA: I know
BT: The only time I seen her was once
SA: Yeah
BT: Yeah
SA:You came over there when she- she was over there because you had the red truck. You had his truck.
BT: We were coming over there to talk to her to give her some evidence
SA: Well you were kinda in a, uh, hurry.
ST: Let me talk to him
BT: Yeah, before she left
ST: I wanna talk to him
SA: Well I don't know. Bit it aint only me. Its your kids too.
ST: I wanna talk to him. Put him on speaker phone.

Now, avery starts talking about barbs kids and here is even more indication Scott wasn't on the phone. If you notice, Scott doesn't start to comment on the conversation until after Barb remarks on it.

SA: Your kids are saying something
BT: About what?
SA: Uh, I aint even gonna get into tha. Yeah, this ain't only me.
Barb: My kids aren't saying ****. Just like, uh, I was supposed to call auto trader
ST: He doesn't know a ****ing thing...

And later, he does the same thing

SA: Yeah see? That ****er needs to be locked up. How about, uh- how about his mother?
BT: What about his mother
SA: Yeah
ST: Yeah, you talking about my mother, you cock-sucker? Ill put you in the ****ing ground.

How can anyone read this transcript and think Scott was responding to avery or could even hear him? He was clearly in the background gathering bits and pieces from the conversation based on what he heard barb say.

Oh you mean the definition that is most commonly used in the english language? Thats the definition you are talking about?

Yes, this evidence wasn't going to help avery. For one, there are implications that he did some of the violent searches. And even if he didn't, they can't prove who did. Second, and most importantly, its a total red herring.

I may make a post on some of Footz other points but I want him to acknowledge that it is unreasonable to conclude scott was responding to avery in that phone call first. Until he can move on from that, there is no point putting in more work to convince him of the obvious.

Even if Scott was responding to him and stated with complete sincerity, "Yes, Teresa left the property and you are innocent, Steven," it would still change absolutely nothing.

Neither Scott's, Barb's, nor anyone else's opinions on whether Teresa left and what happened to her (including Steven's mom's theory that Teresa is still alive) are relevant to Steven's factual and/or legally guilt.

Neither of them testified that Teresa never left the property, as neither of them were there at the time she would have left (if Steven hadn't murdered her).

Scott's comments only hold significance in the fantasy land occupied by Avery supporters where everything is a conspiracy.

In reality, this argument (along with all the others) will be soundly rejected by the courts (if it's even considered at all).

Yeah maybe I should accuse every poster who disagrees with me of being a paid shill & insist two scumbags have been framed in a really complex implausible conspiracy. Then I'll seem more sane to you?

You were stalking me as even your fellow truther pointed out, so it's all good.

Now, are you now gonna back up your whacky claims & fallacies with anything of substance?
Who are we shilling for and why?
Was Griesbach a loser when he helped free Avery?
Why do you feel a lost defence argument should be equated to actual evidence?

Right so iow because he disagrees with you now he's a loser, gotcha.
Did the docutwins try profit saucy? Or just loser Mike??
What lies & falsehoods has Griebach engaged in Saucy? Be specific in your answer thanks in advance mate.

Right so you can't provide the quote to back up your false accusations, surprise surprise. Stop lying saucy, it makes you look even slimier, jeez.


It was for profit hence their 3 mil pad.
I never said anything about them acting illegally, please cite verbatim where I did so. It's not illegal to make a lying selectively edited documentary saucy. Again stop lying it really isn't helping the bats*** nuttery you're trying to pass off as points.

And you said we were "paid shills" so who precisely is paying me to post here to "try to make people believe that the documentarian's purpose for the film was to profit, and so had to engage in illegal activities you refer to as "innocence fraud" in order to accomplish this"

Who is paying us for this "propaganda"? As in now propaganda to discredit two intrepid filmmakers?
I thought earlier we were "shilling" to keep the Railroaded Ones in prison? Now it's to bash the docutwins?
Which is it Saucy? (keep tying yourself up in knots btw with your inconsistent paranoia )