scipio_usmc
Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2017
- Messages
- 78
- Reaction score
- 102
1) Zellner to In Touch media:
"He told the jury that Ms. Halbach was shot twice in the head and bullet fragment had Ms. Halbach’s DNA on it. In order for Ms. Halbach to be shot in the head and deposit her DNA on bullet fragment, had to exit her skull.”
Steven Avery's Defense Attorney Says New Evidence May Set Him Free (EXCLUSIVE)
Kratz told the jury the the expert testimony established she was shot 2 times in the skull. He never claimed she was shot only 2 times he said AT LEAST 2 times and suggested the bullets and number of spent casings supports that she was shot additional times.
When examining a body the coroner can figure out the total number of entrance wounds, exit wounds in any and any graze wounds if any. Since there was no intact body to examine there was no way to determine the exact number of gunshot wounds Halbach suffered.
The expert testified that skull bone fragments were incomplete but those they did recover exhibited signs of 2 entrance wounds and that is how we know she suffered at least 2.
Zellner's claim that it is not possible for her to have suffered additional gunshot wounds and for the bullet to have grazed/exited somewhere other than her skull is totally false.
That is before even getting to the issue that her experts were simply speculating and failed to prove bone would always be present when a bullet enters a skull- a skull can exit through the eye cavities and other locations it just depends on the angle of the shot among other things.
22lr bullets rarely exit skulls though anyway, they are noted to rattle around inside causing severe brain harm which is why despite their small power they are employed by killers who like to fire shots to the head. That's the more likely reason why the bullets found in the garage are unlikely to be related to the 2 entrance wounds.
The insincerity of Zellner's position is even more obvious in that she not only falsely claims the prosecution said the 2 bullets exited her skull, she failed to have both bullets inspected for bone particles she only tested 1.
2) “The day planner was in [Teresa’s vehicle when] she left home on Oct. 31 because she spoke to two of our witnesses and told them she was going to pull over and make notes. Her handwritten notes of these conversations are on the day planner.”
First of all what Zellner is calling a day planner is actually a printed sheet of paper simply. Halbach had a PDA and printed a page of what she had on her PDA. She had that PDA with her the remnants were found in Avery's burn barrel.
Second, the claims of the witnesses are not credible. It is pretty obvious the sheet of paper was left at home and not with her as she did her appointments.
A) Even if Halbach had to go out, it would make no sense for Halbach to decide to call to schedule appointments while driving. Logically she would call and schedule appointments before leaving her house. To drive and keep pulling over to write is nonsensical.
B) The claims do not match what they stated back in 2005.
C) The notion years later they could suddenly vividly recall her saying she dialed them while on her way to AutoTrader appointments and going to pull over to write on the sheet of paper is not credible. That is not a detail any person would reasonably recall more than a decade later and a month earlier Denise could not even recall her phone number from 2005. She stated she did not think it was hers see first doc below.
D) The notion she was on her way to AutoTrader appointments at the time she spoke to them is not credible. We know for a fact she only had 3 appointments that day and she did the first one at 1:30. See trial transcript below. So how could she have been doing AT appointments at 11:30? If Zellner were actually a serious lawyer she would have paid attention to whether she actually was doing any appointments at that time. The hearsay that she said she was is unable to actually establish she was doing appointments that didn't take place.
We know that her first appointment was completed in the afternoon. We know she called the person to make sure he was home before she left because he had cancelled a prior appointment and she wanted to make sure she would not drive there for nothing. She lived 40 minutes away and called him at 12:51 according to her phone records and arrived around 1:30 according to his claims. This comports with her leaving her house after calling and driving to him.
E) One appointment was not on her schedule because it was made that same day. Halbach was not provided the address only Barb Janda's phone number. She called AT and told Angela she could do the appointment but needed the details. She had been provided Janda's number but not her address. Angela told her she would have Dawn Fax the info to her when she returned from lunch which she did after returning. See Testimony below
Halbach called Janda and left a voice message that she needed the address.
Since she didn't know the address she had to wait for the fax before she could do anything and that fax was sent past noon. A redacted copy is attached below. In order to receive this document Halbach had to have been at home subsequent to the time she spoke to Zellner's witnesses. Thus even if she had been on the road as they claimed it means she would have gone home before doing her AT appointments for the day and thus could have left the sheet of paper at home.
Zellner's entire account of how their claims prove the sheet of paper had to be in her car at the time she did her AutoTrader appointments is simply misrepresentation.
I neglected to mention that their claims are hearsay thus not admissible anyway. She never had a serious argument but this post was mainly to demonstrate she was even factually wrong anyway and simply playing disinformation games.
All of Zellner's claims are like this they totally fall apart under close inspection. she knows they are BS but makes the claims anyway and in my opinion should be sanctioned for it.
"He told the jury that Ms. Halbach was shot twice in the head and bullet fragment had Ms. Halbach’s DNA on it. In order for Ms. Halbach to be shot in the head and deposit her DNA on bullet fragment, had to exit her skull.”
Steven Avery's Defense Attorney Says New Evidence May Set Him Free (EXCLUSIVE)
Kratz told the jury the the expert testimony established she was shot 2 times in the skull. He never claimed she was shot only 2 times he said AT LEAST 2 times and suggested the bullets and number of spent casings supports that she was shot additional times.
When examining a body the coroner can figure out the total number of entrance wounds, exit wounds in any and any graze wounds if any. Since there was no intact body to examine there was no way to determine the exact number of gunshot wounds Halbach suffered.
The expert testified that skull bone fragments were incomplete but those they did recover exhibited signs of 2 entrance wounds and that is how we know she suffered at least 2.
Zellner's claim that it is not possible for her to have suffered additional gunshot wounds and for the bullet to have grazed/exited somewhere other than her skull is totally false.
That is before even getting to the issue that her experts were simply speculating and failed to prove bone would always be present when a bullet enters a skull- a skull can exit through the eye cavities and other locations it just depends on the angle of the shot among other things.
22lr bullets rarely exit skulls though anyway, they are noted to rattle around inside causing severe brain harm which is why despite their small power they are employed by killers who like to fire shots to the head. That's the more likely reason why the bullets found in the garage are unlikely to be related to the 2 entrance wounds.
The insincerity of Zellner's position is even more obvious in that she not only falsely claims the prosecution said the 2 bullets exited her skull, she failed to have both bullets inspected for bone particles she only tested 1.
2) “The day planner was in [Teresa’s vehicle when] she left home on Oct. 31 because she spoke to two of our witnesses and told them she was going to pull over and make notes. Her handwritten notes of these conversations are on the day planner.”
First of all what Zellner is calling a day planner is actually a printed sheet of paper simply. Halbach had a PDA and printed a page of what she had on her PDA. She had that PDA with her the remnants were found in Avery's burn barrel.
Second, the claims of the witnesses are not credible. It is pretty obvious the sheet of paper was left at home and not with her as she did her appointments.
A) Even if Halbach had to go out, it would make no sense for Halbach to decide to call to schedule appointments while driving. Logically she would call and schedule appointments before leaving her house. To drive and keep pulling over to write is nonsensical.
B) The claims do not match what they stated back in 2005.
C) The notion years later they could suddenly vividly recall her saying she dialed them while on her way to AutoTrader appointments and going to pull over to write on the sheet of paper is not credible. That is not a detail any person would reasonably recall more than a decade later and a month earlier Denise could not even recall her phone number from 2005. She stated she did not think it was hers see first doc below.
D) The notion she was on her way to AutoTrader appointments at the time she spoke to them is not credible. We know for a fact she only had 3 appointments that day and she did the first one at 1:30. See trial transcript below. So how could she have been doing AT appointments at 11:30? If Zellner were actually a serious lawyer she would have paid attention to whether she actually was doing any appointments at that time. The hearsay that she said she was is unable to actually establish she was doing appointments that didn't take place.
We know that her first appointment was completed in the afternoon. We know she called the person to make sure he was home before she left because he had cancelled a prior appointment and she wanted to make sure she would not drive there for nothing. She lived 40 minutes away and called him at 12:51 according to her phone records and arrived around 1:30 according to his claims. This comports with her leaving her house after calling and driving to him.
E) One appointment was not on her schedule because it was made that same day. Halbach was not provided the address only Barb Janda's phone number. She called AT and told Angela she could do the appointment but needed the details. She had been provided Janda's number but not her address. Angela told her she would have Dawn Fax the info to her when she returned from lunch which she did after returning. See Testimony below
Halbach called Janda and left a voice message that she needed the address.
Since she didn't know the address she had to wait for the fax before she could do anything and that fax was sent past noon. A redacted copy is attached below. In order to receive this document Halbach had to have been at home subsequent to the time she spoke to Zellner's witnesses. Thus even if she had been on the road as they claimed it means she would have gone home before doing her AT appointments for the day and thus could have left the sheet of paper at home.
Zellner's entire account of how their claims prove the sheet of paper had to be in her car at the time she did her AutoTrader appointments is simply misrepresentation.
I neglected to mention that their claims are hearsay thus not admissible anyway. She never had a serious argument but this post was mainly to demonstrate she was even factually wrong anyway and simply playing disinformation games.
All of Zellner's claims are like this they totally fall apart under close inspection. she knows they are BS but makes the claims anyway and in my opinion should be sanctioned for it.
Attachments
Last edited:
