She submitted the facts in her motion to the court as per her computer forensic expert.IMO, what KZ presented to the court regarding BoD as an alternative suspect is an opinion piece with no facts to back it up.
She submitted the facts in her motion to the court as per her computer forensic expert.IMO, what KZ presented to the court regarding BoD as an alternative suspect is an opinion piece with no facts to back it up.
She submitted the facts in her motion to the court as per her computer forensic expert.
I would say her narrative ties in with what was found on the computer regarding Bobby Dassey's pornographic internet searches, of which there were a huge amount, and the fact that that evidence was withheld from the court at Trial.Not talking about the computer - I'm talking about the narrative she spun in the same motion about BoD being the killer and the timeline. Starting on page 7 ... all speculation with no proof.
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...Recent-Examination-of-the-Dassey-Computer.pdf
I would say her narrative ties in with what was found on the computer regarding Bobby Dassey's pornographic internet searches, of which there were a huge amount, and the fact that that evidence was withheld from the court at Trial.
She is proving a Brady violation because BoD's testimony by rights should of been inadmissable, and would of likely had a different outcome at Trial if it had been known to the jury as BoD being an alternate suspect.
BBM - how is the average guilter supposed to afford a team of experts to contradict what KZ has put forward ? We're not talking about the WI police, DOJ, or FBI here.
I used an example of her testing in a post before ... the blood by the ignition switch. She doesn't know when SA's blood ended up there - whether if was planted or it was SA fumbling around somehow in the dark putting the key in the ignition. Impossible to recreate the exact circumstances as she doesn't know them.
As has been mentioned numerous times before here and elsewhere, KZ doesn't have to prove exactly what happened.With all due respect, she is not proving anything as BoD has no prior criminal record and the whole story is a fairy tale. She could've substituted Chuck, Earl, Hillegas, Fabian, ST or anyone else in the story. There is still zero proof that BoD made all of the internet searches that she describes. Does KZ even know for sure that BoD was home alone ? That Blaine/Brendan were at school on the days of the searches ? That ST was not over the house using the computer ? Chuck, Earl, or Steven Avery ? No way to know for sure.
I don't think the defense had nowhere near as much money as the State?That part is indeed ridicoulus. I wonder why SA his lawyer's didn't reach out to experts contradicting some stuff. He paid them alot of money.
I don't think the defense had nowhere near as much money as the State?
Isn't that what Strang & Buting have said?
Has KZ actually stated that BoD committed the crime?
She also mentions ST & RH as lying from her findings.
And about ST lying in court under oath.
Isn't she just naming those 3 as alternate suspects?
Here is an article i found about SA's lawyers.So is it like, the richer you are the more chance of getting out you have? Because i think that is sad.
There should be experts available for the people who don't have millions to spend.
I thought the 400.000 SA had was certainly enough to invite at least one expert over.
Too me it looks like it. I don't really know what her intentions were.
Has KZ actually stated that BoD committed the crime?
She also mentions ST & RH as lying from her findings.
And about ST lying in court under oath.
Isn't she just naming those 3 as alternate suspects?
As has been mentioned numerous times before here and elsewhere, KZ doesn't have to prove exactly what happened.
She will only get an exoneration on legalities and new evidence, which i think she has proven.
It is not a Trial, it is a PCR on those things.
You say you followed the Ryan Ferguson case?
How was he exonerated, on what grounds?
I think you already know the answer ... but mainly because Jerry Trump admitted his trial testimony was fabricated and Chuck Erickson recanted his dream confession.
According to this quote the computer in question was located in the Janda/Dassey residence was is Bobby's room.
"July 6, 2018, Motion to Supplement - P. 12
On November 17, 2017, in a recent interview of Bobby Dassey by the Calumet County Sheriff’s Department, Bobby that the computer was located “on a desk in the living room at the time.” When Bobby was asked if the computer was ever located in his bedroom, he stated, “It was not.” (Attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 13 is the Calumet County Sheriff’s Department Report of the Bobby interview on November 17, 2017). However, Bobby’s statement is directly contradicted by the crime scene footage taken by Sgt. Tyson on November 12, 2005, which shows the computer is located in Bobby’s bedroom."
It would seem Bobby lied about where the computer was.
Was the crime scene video by Sgt. Tyson ever available to the public?So I went hunting for a picture of Bobby's room... I guess it's in MaM2 somewhere, I can't recall seeing it in the show, but maybe in an episode I haven't watched yet. Will post if I can find a screenshot ... I don't have time to go looking through MaM to find it lol