Zellner Tweets

[Saul Vesalot]

me too! A few of them actually :thinking: The reddit post that Madeleine linked in her post, the poster in a comment did state Zellner or other lawyers in her firm, so maybe that's why.

Here is a list of Superbowls Zellner (or some other people) won.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/superbowl/history/winners

:drumroll:


The fact that the list includes cases other people lost is intentional subterfuge. You'd see less sleight of hand at a Penn and Teller show and at least they are honest enough to admit they're trying to trick you. And losing cases isn't a sign that you're a bad lawyer, you might have gotten an awful judge or it was a difficult case.


And I don't see how posting and then deleting tweets is unethical. Maybe unprofessional in appearance, but if the cops and prosecution aren't required to be professional or honest, or even slightly decent people, then I don't know why a defense attorney is a bad person for curating her social media in a weird way.

 

[Karinna]

I really don't understand the personal attacks against K.Z. She is a professional attorney and this isn't a competition as to her personal flaws IMO.
K.Z. has a job to do and she gives it her best shot, and i have no issue with that at all.
I will be interested to see what results she has when she is ready to divulge that information to the Court and to the public.

 

[Karinna]

And no lawyer that i'm aware of has won all their cases, it's not as simple as that.

 

[IDK]

Here is a list of Superbowls Zellner (or some other people) won.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/superbowl/history/winners

:drumroll:


The fact that the list includes cases other people lost is intentional subterfuge. You'd see less sleight of hand at a Penn and Teller show and at least they are honest enough to admit they're trying to trick you. And losing cases isn't a sign that you're a bad lawyer, you might have gotten an awful judge or it was a difficult case.


And I don't see how posting and then deleting tweets is unethical. Maybe unprofessional in appearance, but if the cops and prosecution aren't required to be professional or honest, or even slightly decent people, then I don't know why a defense attorney is a bad person for curating her social media in a weird way.

Love this post, my friend!

 

[Madeleine74]

That's correct, no lawyer has won all their cases, which makes it especially curious when Zellner's record is often quoted as "17-0." That clearly implies she's never lost a case.

Tweeting is not necessarily unethical, as long as the content isn't breaking any lawyer rules, but constantly tweeting, deleting, rewriting, deleting tweets does not indicate a lawyer who is confident. The assertion was that Zellner is confident in her case and her tweets show this. The activity around her tweeting doesn't show this. They show the opposite.

 

[Karinna]

That's correct, no lawyer has won all their cases, which makes it especially curious when Zellner's record is often quoted as "17-0." That clearly implies she's never lost a case.

Tweeting is not necessarily unethical, as long as the content isn't breaking any lawyer rules, but constantly tweeting, deleting, rewriting, deleting tweets does not indicate a lawyer who is confident. The assertion was that Zellner is confident in her case and her tweets show this. The activity around her tweeting doesn't show this. They show the opposite.

BBM, The 17-18 quoted is in reference to the exonerations of wrongful convictions she has had so far.
I'm not really sure what your point is about her tweeting, but can't we just wait to see what she has when she makes her next move instead of second guessing her?

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Here are cases that Zellner took and did not win (or in a few cases her firm did not win). Her record isn't 17-0, while the 17 wins are correct and impressive, the '0' losses are not accurate.

Chart source

I don't think this chart is a true representation of the cases that KZ has won or lost. Looks to me to be "cherry picked". I can say that with 100% confidence as I know first hand (family member's case) that was won and is not on the list. Won't go into details, but my family members were very happy with the results of her representation. For privacy reasons, I will only say the case revolved around medical malpractice and a missed cancer diagnoses.

 

[dexter75]

That's correct, no lawyer has won all their cases, which makes it especially curious when Zellner's record is often quoted as "17-0." That clearly implies she's never lost a case.

Tweeting is not necessarily unethical, as long as the content isn't breaking any lawyer rules, but constantly tweeting, deleting, rewriting, deleting tweets does not indicate a lawyer who is confident. The assertion was that Zellner is confident in her case and her tweets show this. The activity around her tweeting doesn't show this. They show the opposite.

I can't find any place where Zellners record is quoted 17-0? I must be looking in all of the wrong places..
I've seen on multiple sites where folks brag her up because she HAS helped 17 wrongfully convicted men get out of prison😊 Not sure how it got turned around to she has a perfect record?? or some such rumor.
Anyway, I can understand how you would see her tweets the way that you do, others too. I respect the way you view them😉

IMO it's all about perception.

I view them as she's confident and cocky as hell about it, lol. ( someone let their conscience get the better of them, and has been talking to her ALL along )

Zellner knows certain folks are following her tweets and quite frankly, she does everything she does with purpose.

JMO

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

I don't think this chart is a true representation of the cases that KZ has won or lost. Looks to me to be "cherry picked". I can say that with 100% confidence as I know first hand (family member's case) that was won and is not on the list. Won't go into details, but my family members were very happy with the results of her representation. For privacy reasons, I will only say the case revolved around medical malpractice and a missed cancer diagnoses.

Thanks for that information, BCA😊

I agree the list looks to be " cherry picked " for sure😉

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[missy1974]

I can't find any place where Zellners record is quoted 17-0? I must be looking in all of the wrong places..
I've seen on multiple sites where folks brag her up because she HAS helped 17 wrongfully convicted men get out of prison�� Not sure how it got turned around to she has a perfect record?? or some such rumor.
Anyway, I can understand how you would see her tweets the way that you do, others too. I respect the way you view them��

IMO it's all about perception.

I view them as she's confident and cocky as hell about it, lol. ( someone let their conscience get the better of them, and has been talking to her ALL along )

Zellner knows certain folks are following her tweets and quite frankly, she does everything she does with purpose.

JMO

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

I found an article done by uproxx back in August that said 17-0 (uproxx.com/tv/making-a-murderer-avery-lawyer-dna-motion/ ) They also call Teresa, Tera. smh

Also from another online site, who probably got their info from uproxx LOL (http://ca.complex.com/life/2016/08/evidence-points-new-subject-making-a-murderer-case)

I found numerous reddit links that say 17-0.

I have searched websleuths and have google searched websleuths.com site and the only reference to 17-0 is post #1447 of this thread that comes up.

I am pretty sure I have seen the 17-0 long before August, probably on reddit, but I'm not sure where it originated from because I don't see that KZ herself has ever claimed the 0 part. Anyway, I think her record of having 17, which I think it's now 18, is great.

Reference: http://www.kathleentzellner.com/wrongful-conviction/

 

[dexter75]

I found an article done by uproxx back in August that said 17-0 (uproxx.com/tv/making-a-murderer-avery-lawyer-dna-motion/ ) They also call Teresa, Tera. smh

Also from another online site, who probably got their info from uproxx LOL (http://ca.complex.com/life/2016/08/evidence-points-new-subject-making-a-murderer-case)

I found numerous reddit links that say 17-0.

I have searched websleuths and have google searched websleuths.com site and the only reference to 17-0 is post #1447 of this thread that comes up.

I am pretty sure I have seen the 17-0 long before August, probably on reddit, but I'm not sure where it originated from because I don't see that KZ herself has ever claimed the 0 part. Anyway, I think her record of having 17, which I think it's now 18, is great.

Reference: http://www.kathleentzellner.com/wrongful-conviction/

Thanks Missy!

Clears up a lot of where that rumor might have came from😊IMO
I didn't think I had seen it posted here prior.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

Please post a link where that has been stated on this thread. Thanks.

It has not been posted on this thread😉

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[missy1974]

Thanks Missy!

Clears up a lot of where that rumor might have came from��IMO
I didn't think I had seen it posted here prior.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

I'm not saying it hasn't been, but I definitely couldn't find it. It's been in a few articles, so it's possible it has been, but I'm somewhat interested now to know where is started... reddit perhaps?

Reddit is a great source of ideas and information, I think it's also important to verify what is written before bringing it here, websleuths definitely has a higher standard.... of course JMO I have brought over many things from there, nothing wrong with it, I'm just cautious and always try to verify before bringing it over, or will state that I have not verified it myself yet. There are some great posters over there that have compiled timelines, charts, etc. ... I wish some would come over here

 

[dexter75]

I'm not saying it hasn't been, but I definitely couldn't find it. It's been in a few articles, so it's possible it has been, but I'm somewhat interested now to know where is started... reddit perhaps?

Reddit is a great source of ideas and information, I think it's also important to verify what is written before bringing it here, websleuths definitely has a higher standard.... of course JMO I have brought over many things from there, nothing wrong with it, I'm just cautious and always try to verify before bringing it over, or will state that I have not verified it myself yet. There are some great posters over there that have compiled timelines, charts, etc. ... I wish some would come over here

FWIW, thank you for digging around & looking😊 I appreciate it!
And yes I think reddit is a great place for bouncing ideas off one another, picking each other's brains, & information in general. I also think info should be verified before bringing over😉
Keeps WS legit😉❤


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

It has not been posted on this thread😉
Edited to add IMO😊

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[IDK]

That's weird. One of my posts seems to have disappeared. If it was deleted by a moderator, would I have been notified? It was just a reminder for folks to add IN MY OPINION, when they are not stating actual facts, but their own conclusions. Odd that it would be deleted, when links to questionable sources are allowed to stand.

 

[Madeleine74]

Reddit is a great source of ideas and information, I think it's also important to verify what is written before bringing it here, websleuths definitely has a higher standard.... of course JMO I have brought over many things from there, nothing wrong with it, I'm just cautious and always try to verify before bringing it over, or will state that I have not verified it myself yet. There are some great posters over there that have compiled timelines, charts, etc. ... I wish some would come over here

:floorlaugh: Oh the richness. Reddit has been used multiple times, to further conspiracy theories, speculation, and pro-Avery content over months. Talk about cherry picking. In fact I remember when RANCH asked why the heck Reddit was even allowed on WS, in addition to blog sites filled with speculation that have been used as source, and I remember Reddit was deemed as a valid enough source for WS.

The only requirement WS has to provide a link where something was published or stated and use a source that is allowed on WS (meaning a website that is not blocked and is not someone's personal social media).

 

[dexter75]

:floorlaugh: Oh the richness. Reddit has been used multiple times, to further conspiracy theories, speculation, and pro-Avery content over months. Talk about cherry picking. In fact I remember when RANCH asked why the heck Reddit was even allowed on WS, in addition to blog sites filled with speculation that have been used as source, and I remember Reddit was deemed as a valid enough source for WS.

The only requirement WS has to provide a link where something was published or stated and use a source that is allowed on WS (meaning a website that is not blocked and is not someone's personal social media).

Rereading Missys post, she did say she herself has brought information over from reddit.
She just stated she makes sure it's information that checks out😉

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[missy1974]

:floorlaugh: Oh the richness. Reddit has been used multiple times, to further conspiracy theories, speculation, and pro-Avery content over months. Talk about cherry picking. In fact I remember when RANCH asked why the heck Reddit was even allowed on WS, in addition to blog sites filled with speculation that have been used as source, and I remember Reddit was deemed as a valid enough source for WS.

The only requirement WS has to provide a link where something was published or stated and use a source that is allowed on WS (meaning a website that is not blocked and is not someone's personal social media).

so you don't think it's important to at least verify that what you are posting is true before you post it, if it's being posted as "proof" when asked for a link? Obviously you read on reddit, you would have to agree that there is a lot on there that shouldn't and wouldn't be allowed here. If you feel comfortable posting a link to reddit and not verifying it first, go for it. I know I don't.

JUST MY OPINION

 

[missy1974]

Rereading Missys post, she did say she herself has brought information over from reddit.
She just stated she makes sure it's information that checks out��

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Right... and like I said, there are some great posters over there that I wish would come over here and contribute. But I do always try to post if I have been able to verify or if I was unable to verify. JMO