Zellner's Latest New Motion

[Jaiddie]

July 6 2018 Motion to Supplement Previously Filed Petition.pdf

 

[missy1974]

Hi Jaiddie! I was just going to come and post this!

I will add the other exhibits
6-8
https://criminaljusticereformjournal.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/exhibits-6-8.pdf
9-10
https://criminaljusticereformjournal.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/exhibits-9-10.pdf
11-20
https://criminaljusticereformjournal.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/exhibits-11-20.pdf
21-30
https://criminaljusticereformjournal.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/exhibits-21-30.pdf

 

[missy1974]

I have read it and ... WOW... I don't have time to post about it now but will later

 

[Jaiddie]

Hi, missy This motion has blown my mind with some of the information it contains, but what I found most intriguing was in BoD interview where they are questioning him about if he is familiar with the area off Kuss Road. First of all he denies knowing of it, which I find astounding, as its right next to his childhood home AND he was a hunter so I cry foul on that one. Second, and most important of all, why are LE questioning him about Kuss Road when, supposedly, nothing was found there. Nothing to see here, remember? Hmmmm.

 

[guruagain]

So many things in this case only actually start to make sense when you consider the scenario where Bod was the killer, ST helped him clear up and somehow LE colluded with them to frame SA.

 

[proudfootz]

I find the last paragraph beginning on page 16 to be compelling. Bobby's testimony about being asleep could have been impeached by the withheld computer records that showed throughout that time he was accessing the computer where he stored vast amounts of disturbing material involving sex with children, violence against women including rape and murder, and the mutilation of women. LE appears to have not only ignored this suspect, but actively covered up for him in their determination to accuse Steven Avery.

 

[CoolJ]

Will Kratz’ words “nothing much of evidentiary value” be the nail in his coffin? This is a Brady violation right here in black and white.
Seeing as how the state only has to answer to the state, will this clear violation of SA’s constitutional rights be accounted for?

 

[missy1974]

Here is the State's response:
https://criminaljusticereformjournal.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/states-response.pdf

and exhibits:
https://criminaljusticereformjournal.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/velie-affidavit.pdf

The State and Velie are saying that everything on the CD was on the DVD's but needed a program (Encase) to extract the info. Keep in mind, we do not have access to the CD, it's been sealed by the court.

If they really would have just handed it over if Buting/Strang had asked, why did it take KZ months to get it?

I am not sure that this is a Brady violation or ineffectiveness of counsel, I'm leaning more to the latter actually, but even if I (and smart lawyers lol) thought it was a violation, I'm sure it will get denied LOL I think at this point, it needs to go beyond Wisconsin. JMO

 

[proudfootz]

I agree and I wouldn't be surprised to find the state taking the side of the state.

 

[CoolJ]

Here is the State's response:
https://criminaljusticereformjournal.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/states-response.pdf

and exhibits:
https://criminaljusticereformjournal.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/velie-affidavit.pdf

The State and Velie are saying that everything on the CD was on the DVD's but needed a program (Encase) to extract the info. Keep in mind, we do not have access to the CD, it's been sealed by the court.

If they really would have just handed it over if Buting/Strang had asked, why did it take KZ months to get it?

I am not sure that this is a Brady violation or ineffectiveness of counsel, I'm leaning more to the latter actually, but even if I (and smart lawyers lol) thought it was a violation, I'm sure it will get denied LOL I think at this point, it needs to go beyond Wisconsin. JMO

It is a Brady violation. Don’t let the states response fool you. They hid an experts report and analysis from the defence. And they did it in a deceptive manner as proven by Kratz’ “ nothing much of evidentiary value”.

It would be akin to having an accountant complete an audit but only turning over the financial records to the defense and not the accountants written report.

 

[missy1974]

It is a Brady violation. Don’t let the states response fool you. They hid an experts report and analysis from the defence. And they did it in a deceptive manner as proven by Kratz’ “ nothing much of evidentiary value”.

It would be akin to having an accountant complete an audit but only turning over the financial records to the defense and not the accountants written report.

I kinda had that opinion before the State's response ;-) I would like to see if KZ responds to this and what she has to say. I think the biggest hurdle is going to be proving it was Bobby doing those searches, even if you and I believe it was him, or it was most likely him, it won't matter if it can't be proven. And then if that can be used to show Bobby would have met the Denny rules. I think it would, only because the State used sex, perversion, etc as SA's motive, so what is good for one, is good for another, right?

I do think that Strang/Buting need to have a good explanation of why they didn't have that hard drive looked at back in 2006. JMO

 

[CoolJ]

I kinda had that opinion before the State's response ;-) I would like to see if KZ responds to this and what she has to say. I think the biggest hurdle is going to be proving it was Bobby doing those searches, even if you and I believe it was him, or it was most likely him, it won't matter if it can't be proven. And then if that can be used to show Bobby would have met the Denny rules. I think it would, only because the State used sex, perversion, etc as SA's motive, so what is good for one, is good for another, right?

I do think that Strang/Buting need to have a good explanation of why they didn't have that hard drive looked at back in 2006. JMO

I think the biggest hurdle is going to be getting a favourable response from a Wisconsin judge, regardless what Zellner presents in her motions.

As for proving Bobby did those searches, I am certainly no expert in case law but I would guess there are numerous examples of people being convicted on CP charges on shared computers using the very same method Zellner did. Narrowing down who had access at the relevant times.

I think S&B just trusted and went with Kratz’ two blatant lies:
1) “nothing much of evidentiary value”
2) that it was Brendan’s computer

 

[missy1974]

I think the biggest hurdle is going to be getting a favourable response from a Wisconsin judge, regardless what Zellner presents in her motions.

As for proving Bobby did those searches, I am certainly no expert in case law but I would guess there are numerous examples of people being convicted on CP charges on shared computers using the very same method Zellner did. Narrowing down who had access at the relevant times.

I think S&B just trusted and went with Kratz’ two blatant lies:
1) “nothing much of evidentiary value”
2) that it was Brendan’s computer

Yep, I agree with that! That's why I say, I think it needs to get beyond Wisconsin, which is going to take quite awhile, unfortunately.

As for proving it was Bobby, it will come down to what information is available, and because the computer was reformatted before it was taken as evidence, that might be hard to do. I can see by some of the times, that it would be more likely than not Bobby, but without knowing what days the other boys may have been home, it's hard to say because let's face it, they were teenage boys, that from everything I can see, didn't have a whole lot of parental guidance, and Barb was too busy screwing her husbands cousin and sneaking around to watch what her boys were doing online. <<< JMO

 

[leslievernon]

i think it is a big deal when someone consumes that kind of violent . and it makes more sense now reg. brandon's whole "confession", doesn't it:
remember when brendan sat in that classroom, and had to write down "what happened".. then he drew that picture of a woman, and the chains... they also showed it during his trial.
could that be something that he just saw on the computer... all those violent images, from his brother?

 

[leslievernon]

i have to get up to date with the locations in wisconsin, but i find point 14 on pdf-page 9 of the motion anyway interesting, reg. THs car:

"Kevin Rahmlow, in 2 affidavits, described seeing Ms. Halbach's RAV-4 on November 3 and 4 2005, by the old dam on STH 147 and reporting it to Sgt. Andy Colborn. The RAV-4 was located within half a mile of Scott Tadych's former and current residences."

who is kevin rahmlow?
also, where's the old dam located? and how far are tadych's residences away from the avery yard?
this is just completely remarkable.

 

[YIPSISTHEMAN]

If I understand what a Brady violation is (and I may not) Zellner needs to prove that had the defense had access to this computer, there was a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different. Even if everything in her filing is true, I don't see anything that exonerates Steven Avery. I also don't see any sort of smoking gun which says "I killed Teresa Halbach." Maybe I'm missing something. But even if you could prove that Bobby Dassey looked at violent and possibly chatted with underage girls, all it would prove is that he was a creep. None of this points to Steven Avery being innocent.

I can't help but be curious how the Avery family feels about Zellner throwing other family members under the bus.

 

[leslievernon]

@YIPSISTHEMAN
the state's response to KZs filing was that there was no brady violation. when you read the e-mail between strang/buting and kratz... kratz said that there is nothing of evidentiary value on the data cds/dvds, so strang replied by saying, basically, yeah we trust LE that they looked into it and that there was nothing of evidentiary value on the data cds or dvds.

at this point i guess buting and strang had a lot to prepare oand other problems. it is not their fault ultimately,. they trusted kratz. and they got f*ed. because that data is imo very suspicious and points away from avery.

 

[CoolJ]

@YIPSISTHEMAN
the state's response to KZs filing was that there was no brady violation. when you read the e-mail between strang/buting and kratz... kratz said that there is nothing of evidentiary value on the data cds/dvds, so strang replied by saying, basically, yeah we trust LE that they looked into it and that there was nothing of evidentiary value on the data cds or dvds.

at this point i guess buting and strang had a lot to prepare oand other problems. it is not their fault ultimately,. they trusted kratz. and they got f*ed. because that data is imo very suspicious and points away from avery.

It is not so much that it points away from Avery. Rather, it includes BoD as a possible suspect. Had the trial counsel known this information at the time they could have made a strong argument to present BoD as a suspect. This information was deceitfully suppressed, thereby denying SA his right to a fair trial.

 

[YIPSISTHEMAN]

But again, doesn't an alleged Brady violation have to be convincing enough to conclude that the evidence's inclusion would have found Avery not guilty? I don't think this does.

 

[leslievernon]

@YIPS (i shorten that if you don't mind - state's response pdf is post #8.

yes the state response was:
1. that the CD is not new evidence. which is true, per se. they had it back in 06.
2. correct me if i am wrong but they basically say that, because the defense did not introduce that at the trial in 07, nobody can say now if the contents on the CD would have raised doubt reg. averys guilt and/or was incriminating for someone else. .. because nobody introduced it. jury didn't see it.

@CoolJ
yes, deceitful. that's a good description. i think so too.