In the case of Mario Casciaro the courts found that the state failed to show that he was guilty.

In the United States, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Therefore it can't be sanely argued that mentioning his innocence is a 'lie'.

-----

A panel of judges with the Second District Appellate Court of Illinois ruled on Sept. 17 that prosecutors provided insufficient evidence to prove that Cascairo, now 32, had murdered 17-year-old Brian Carrick, saying "the evidence against defendant was so lacking and so improbable that 'it is simply unreasonable to sustain the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,'" and reversed the conviction.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/mario-casc...ry?id=33919084

###

I can certainly understand Casciaro's decision to get on with his life and stop having to deal with the lowlifes on the prosecution side who brought this unreasonable and improbable case into the courtroom.

Yes it can. Your problem is that you conflate what stuff means with what you think stuff should mean.

Casciaro was not declared innocent, end of story.
http://www.nwherald.com/2017/03/17/w...cence/a510ir1/
So yeah Zellcat lying her shyster ass of as usual surprise surprise yawn & an overturned conviction is not an exoneration or a declaration of innocence & very telling indeed Casciaro dropped his certificate for innocence bid once he'd have to actually back up his hot air noise btw. you need to learn what stuff means Loudz. As in actually means as opposed to your wishful thinking, thanks.

Prosecution are lowlives huh? All about the injustice with you innit & not cuz you're an anti authoritarian conspiracy theorist with a clear grudge against LE & prosecutors? Keep showing your true colours.

So unreasonable it led to an arrest trial & conviction. Again you need to learn what stuff means & stop conflating your personal (and decidedly insurmountable) criteria for the standard criteria of what constitutes a reasonable case to bring to trial. Casciaro wasn't exonerated or declared innocent. Zellner is still a liar. Your obstinacy due to your rampant fanboyism is hilarious. As is your hilarious non argument that:

Cite verbatim where Casciaro declared "innocent" or else learn the diff between an exoneration & vacated conviction.

What's already been revealed is bad enough. It's entirely possible there is more to come.[/QUOTE]

Agreed, And hopefully Mr hunt retrieves enough data to show a clearer picture of events between 31st Oct & 2nd..Nov 2005.

I predict there will be one of two outcomes

1) Nothing of interest will be on this computer that Zellner can spin in her favor.

2) Nothing of interest will be on this computer but Zellner will find a way to spin it anyway.

It'd be good to have some more information, whichever way it points.

Yes...
There's some seriously bad **** on that computer & as 2005 was still the wild west in internet age, i'm sure there is more to come....
Got to give lostinthesause some credit again here, spotting the sexual predator & naming him as a suspect very early...
I honestly think Zellners best hope is getting S.Walker removed from office in Nov..along with the clear brady violations that have occured.
Then again, being up against a corrupt county is one hellava wall to climb....

Thanks proudfoot for your work here, I owe you a beer sir

Good call.

Cheers!

+1

Isn't this barbs computer and not the same computer from 2002/3?

This is apparently the same computer Bobby (the last person to see Teresa alive) was looking up rape and torture porn and stuff about killing and mutilating women just before Teresa disappeared.

Avery & Dassey were the last people to see Teresa alive & searches don't mean they were all done by Bobby Dassey. But of course intimation is sufficient for him. Anyone but cuddly Stevie!

Oh in that case its already been established what was on that computer so this isn't "new evidence". It was presented in both zellners appeal and given to the defense at averys first trial.

So this will get thrown out like everything else.

Just to be clear..

Evidence Bobby is guilty:

*present in home that contained a computer where torture porn and violent videos were searched
*On property around the time Teresa went missing

Evidence against avery:
*A history of abuse toward women, including a history of being accused of rape and attempted murder
*Frequented home where violent videos and torture porn were searched
*on property where Teresa went missing
*last known person to see Teresa
*Sold his sisters Van against her wishes and requested Teresa by name
*called Teresa blocked twice but unblocked once after her phone went offline
*had a large bonfire witnessed by several people, the same pit where the bonfire took place is where teresas remains were found
*lied about having a bonfire initially but now admits to having one
*Teresas car was found with averys blood located in 6 different places inside her vehicle and his DNA was found on her hood latch
*The key to this vehicle was found in averys bedroom
*A gun that is kept above averys bed was found to have shot Teresa using both ballistics and dna testing on the bullet found in the garage.


Just to name a few. Do you really think if the jury knew that this computer was used to search hardcore rape porn and some violent images that it would have changed the trial one bit?

Apparently legal professionals familiar with the case disagree with your opinion.

Jerome Buting—co-counsel for Avery at his 2007 trial—highlighted the state’s failure to disclose a CD, “contain[ing] information on websites and images from the hard drive [of the Dassey’s computer—including,] injuries to humans, to include a decapitated head, badly injured and bloody body, a bloody head injury, and a mutilated body.”

...

The CD, marked, ‘Dassey Computer, Final Report, Investigative Copy,’ was kept—along with hardcopy pages of instant message conversations—in Agent Fassbender’s possession rather than being disclosed to Avery’s defence attorney prior to trial.

Why this evidence was kept in the private stash of Tom Fassbender as a trophy instead of being handed over to the defense as required by law remains a mystery.

It would be pure speculation on my part to suppose that the reason was that it not only impeached the prosecution's star witness, but pointed to a very viable alternate suspect.

Maybe so - just look at how the Italian courts acted in the Kercher case. There's no guarantees justice will be served.

Yes.

Which is the most obvious explanation for why the evidence was withheld.

It wasn't withheld last year Zellner blamed ineffective counsel, now she's saying it was withheld. Just more bs from her.

Apparently Fassbender added it to his personal porn collection.

Just to be clear...

The trial testimony of William Newhouse, the technician who claims to have matched the bullet fragment to the weapon found in Steven's home...

Newhouse readily admits his work is subjective:

8 Q. I'm going to read for you a statement from the
9 AFTE, A-F-T-E, Journal, the organization that you
10 belong with. And you tell me if you agree or
11 disagree with this particular statement. Quote,
12 "Currently the interpretation of
13 individualization/identification is subjective in
14 nature, founded on scientific principles and
15 based on examiner's training and experience."
16 A. That's correct.
(Page 146)

Newhouse cannot deny that there is a great deal of difference between the bullet fragment and the test bullet fired from the weapon found in Steven's home:

1 Q. In any event, the test fired bullet on the right
2 shows quite a bit of differences in the land area
3 from the one on the left, does it not? It seems
4 to have some extra ridges or bulges sticking out
5 of some sort?
6 A. There are differences on -- between both bullets.
7 I don't know what you're referring to
8 specifically. There's a great deal of
9 differences on the bullet on the left side of the
10 photograph when you compare it to the bullet on
11 the right side of the photograph.
12 Q. A great deal of difference, right?
13 A. Absolutely, yes.
(Page 155)

[Note - the left and right portion of the photograph designates an exhibit that shows a side-by-side comparison between the bullet in evidence versus the test bullet known to have been fired from the weapon seized by police.]

Newhouse did not compare the bullet in evidence to any other weapons of the same make and model even though it is one of the most popular and hence common weapons of this caliber.

5 Q. Did you examine any other Marlin 60 firearms for
6 this case?
7 A. I did not.
(page 146)

And in a very long section of the examination of the state's expert witness, he admits that while ordinarily this sort of subjective analysis is confirmed by another expert, in the case of this bullet no peer review was done.

20 Q. Well, how do you ever have anybody review your
21 work?
22 A. I do that using the photographs. And one of the
23 examiners in the Milwaukee laboratory, another of
24 the Wisconsin State Laboratories, of course,
25 reviews my photographs. And on occasion, I will
1 take cases over to him where I believe it's
2 warranted, or where he does. And that's how we
3 conduct our peer review of the examinations.
4 Q. That's how you comply with that part of your
5 protocol that says you always have an examiner --
6 two examiners look at the same thing, right?
7 A. Exactly.
(Pages 160 and 161)

To be valid, scientific work must be subjected to peer review to help eliminate error.

7 Q. Do you see Mr. Templin's initials anywhere on
8 here?
9 A. They are not there.
10 Q. Do you see any other firearm tool examiner's
11 initials anywhere on here?
12 A. No. Mr. Templin is the one who reviewed that
13 one, there wouldn't be anyone else.
14 Q. Do you see Item 428?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Also another one for Item FL; do you see your
17 initials on there?
18 A. Yes, they are.
19 Q. Do you see Mr. Templin's initials on there?
20 A. No, they are not.
21 Q. So, we have, in your documentation that you must
22 keep in order to maintain your profile --
23 protocol, no record that any other examiner,
24 besides yourself, looked at Item FL to confirm
25 whether your opinion that this bullet was fired
1 from the gun that was before you earlier, were
2 one in the same, came from the same gun, right?
(Pages 163 and 164)

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...-2007Mar01.pdf

It is my considered opinion that Buting did us a service by demonstrating that Newhouse's subjective opinion deviates from the accepted norms of his specialty and cannot be taken as probative.

Your trolling is seriously below par. B&S were aware of the CDs/DVDS. It wasn't withheld, Zells is being her usual contrary self. Avery's .22 was established as the murder weapon & the state's expert testimony was accepted after defence had their say on it. That's it. Yet more rinse repeat & spam from Avery's murderer groupie cult. It's also your considered opinion that Richard Ofshe is a credible source & that some mad complex conspiracy occurred in the Teresa Halbach case. So your considered opinion is pretty irrelevant.

What specific information is on this CD that wasn't on the DVDs given to buting and strang? What is the probative value of this information as it pertains to the Avery case?

Why even bother having procedures and protocols in the various forensic labs? No one follows them, and clearly Corpus doesn’t know their intended purpose.

Science, how does it work?

I assume you're talking about the DNA test that was done on the bullet fragment? If so, no protocol was broken here. You'd know this had you read the transcripts or bothered paying attention to what people have told you itt.

Science, how does it work?

I was speaking in general about all procedures.

And yes, I’m aware of what the prosecutor asked her during the trial. I’m also aware of what the defence asked her.

The control is important in science, you understand that right?

Jus like procedures are important in bullet matching.

Labs don’t just write these procedures down for the fun of it.

Sure, I understand all that. I also understand deductive reasoning and logic and at some point you should probably ask yourself what the likelihood that discovering the technicians DNA on a control sample could result in a false positive for Teresas DNA on the actual sample.

Then you should ask yourself given we can only test this particular fragment one time if an exception is necessary.. She even said per protocol that if she had contaminated the actual sample they'd do an analysis called "likelihood scenario". Given the source of the contamination is known its almost a certainty that in that scenario the test would have also been allowed.