Author Topic: For Those That Believe JB Guilty...  (Read 8017 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Samson

Re: For Those That Believe JB Guilty...
« Reply #330 on: June 19, 2017, 04:13:58 AM »
You should be careful about posting that Ryan H is a killer such can constitute defamation.  Steven Avery most certainly killed Halbach.

Zellner's motion contains speculation built upon so many lies that it is astounding. She lies as much as Mike which is quite bad considering lawyers have an ethical duty of candor towards tribunals and adversaries.
I have also spent hours on the Avery case including reading Jeremy Buting's book Illusion of Justice.
Defence attorneys write books when their client is innocent, not when they have argued reasonable doubt, and said oh well we did our best. It is in fact extremely unusual for defence attorneys to proclaim innocence. This is the case in the Mark Lundy case in New Zealand, where David Hislop Ross Burns and Julie Kincaide all declared their client factually innocent after he was called legally guilty by a jury. The defence attorneys are correct, and in October this will be seen in the high court at appeal. I know a great deal about what is happening in that case, including conclusive new evidence not in the public domain, but the case is now international as the prosecutors will find to their eternal shame.. It is also no casual observation Zellner makes when stating Ryan Hillegas killed Teresa, and that is not defamation in the USA or she would not have placed it on the public record. She cites compelling inferences that can bed made, read the 200 pages already out of her 1200 page filing. Like Jeremy Bamber and Mark Lundy, Steve has a cast iron alibi in the matter of phone calls from his property he made when Teresa was already visiting Hillegas.

I am happy to debate with facts till the cows come home.
On Bamber, I would refer you to MikeG's best attempt, as architectural draughtsman, to get bullets in the correct flesh trajectory, to Nevill while still in the bedroom. Mike is a bright guy, but seems unwilling to concede he proved it was impossible for Nevill to be shot inside the  bedroom. This is all on the IA thread.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2017, 04:19:24 AM by Samson »

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: For Those That Believe JB Guilty...
« Reply #331 on: June 19, 2017, 05:01:23 PM »
I have also spent hours on the Avery case including reading Jeremy Buting's book Illusion of Justice.
Defence attorneys write books when their client is innocent, not when they have argued reasonable doubt, and said oh well we did our best. It is in fact extremely unusual for defence attorneys to proclaim innocence.

Believing someone is innocent because their attorney claims it is silly. Their attorney is a paid advocate.  OJ Simpson's lawyers publicly said he was innocent even as they privately admitted his guilt.

A defense lawyer is in no stronger a position to evaluate guilt or innocence than any other informed people and are biased instead of being objective.  What matters is the basis of their beliefs and their beliefs are based on nonsense and their allegations of evidence being planted are absurd.


It is also no casual observation Zellner makes when stating Ryan Hillegas killed Teresa, and that is not defamation in the USA or she would not have placed it on the public record. She cites compelling inferences that can bed made, read the 200 pages already out of her 1200 page filing.

It's not compelling to anyone who is objective and informed. The brief is full of lies and absurd allegations that make no sense and that legally can't be made even if there were a retrial. 

All she did was take wild allegations made up by people who decided they want to argue Avery is innocent and spend day after day making up wild nonsense claims.  Adopting their fairytales harms her credibility severely. It basically would be like a lawyer going to the blue forum and adopting wild crap Mike makes up.

Under the Denny case in order to accuse a third party at a Wisconsin trial the defense must have the following:

1) evidence of a credible motive

2) evidence of opportunity

3) evidence of means

4) something to establish a link between the death and the person beyond simply speculation.

I. Motive

Hillegas dated the victim in high school and they broke up during their freshman year of college when she was 19, she was 25 when killed so dated others for years after they broke up.  He had no delusions that she wasn't dating others.

Zellner lied to try to establish a plausible motive.  She alleged that:

1) Hillegas was trying to date the victim again (there is no evidence of this she made it up)


2) That the victim was having a sexual relationship with her roommate around the time of her death


3) That he found out that the victim was sleeping with her roommate and became jealous because he wanted her so fought with her on October 31 over this and killed her thus didn't want
 
There is no evidence that Hillegas was trying to get her back or wanted her back. That was entirely made up speculation on her part. So even if there were a retrial there is no admissible evidence that could be used to get this allegation before the jury. Worse still there was no evidence of a then current sexual relationship with her roommate.  A man who allegedly had a sexual relationship with her in the past alleged that well before the murder she had admitted she slept with her roommate a few times but regretted it and was just platonic around the time of her death. Emails sent out shortly before her death indicated she felt her roommate was a pig, couldn't stand him and was glad she barely saw him because their schedules didn't align.  Even if the man's allegations are true that she slept with him a few times many months before her murder and regretted it that fails to establish any ongoing sexual relationship for Hillegas to be jealous of.

Another lie she told was that Hillegas had an on again off again relationship with her that was abusive. There was no evidence of them dating after they broke up their freshman year of college so no evidence of an on again off again relationship.  Nor is there evidence of any abuse. Tom Pearce told police she told him she was in an abusive relationship her senior year of college and when she was interning. She was not dating Hillegas her senior year of college the person being referred to can't be Hillegas.  Zellner ignored such and lied because she had nothing legitimate to raise.  So she pretended that Hillegas was dating her their senior year of college when it was her senior year of high school.  To try to get away with the farce she said senior year without specifying college or high school.

So her speculation as to motive entirely flopped and is proven nonsense. 
 

II. Opportunity

There is no evidence that supports Halbach left the Avery property alive let alone went home, that Hillegas visited her as soon as she got home and he then killed her.  She simply alleges Halbach left without providing any evidence beyond Steven Avery's self serving claims.  Steven Avery now claims she arrived at 2:31, took the photos, he walked to her vehicle, paid her at her vehicle, gave him the materials and left in a matter of 3 minutes and was already gone by 2:35 and that he called her at 2:35 to ask her to return. This is contradicted by logic, witness testimony and it also differs from what he told police back in 2005.  His own nephew said that he saw her walking to Avery's trailer and that Avery didn't walk to her vehicle as he claimed. His nephew said he saw her taking photos around 2:45 and that her vehicle was still there around 2:50 when he left.

The defense needs evidence that establishes she left and went home but has none.  Zellner tried to deflect from these deficiencies by concentrating entirely on Hillegas and lied saying he had no alibi and could not account for what he did. The evidence she cited for such simply said police didn't ask him to prove what he was doing that week.  Indeed during his trial testimony he detailed what he did on the day she was reported missing and the next few days after that. Even if true that police didn't ask that doesn't mean he could not detail what he did. But he would only have a need to account for what he did if the defense can first establish she left and went home and establish that Hillegas was there.

Nor does the defense have any evidence to support opportunity or means to plant evidence. The defense hilariously lied about Hillegas having unfettered access to the property while police were processing it.  Friends of the victim including Hillegas were allowed to search the areas adjacent to Avery Salvage they were not permitted on Avery Salvage.  Even if he had been allowed on Avery Salvage the notion he was transporting burned human bones and burned property and planting same while police were there collecting evidence and walking around with K9 dogs is ridiculous.  Only people who are too biased to be rational/realistic would consider such even remotely possible.

   
III & IV Means plus something more

The defense completely ignored the evidence that proved the victim was shot at least 2 times in the head.  There is no evidence of Hillegas having access to a gun.  The defense speculated the victim was hit over the head and strangled.  It is not speculation but proven fact that the victim was shot at least 2 times in the head. It makes no difference whether those 2 shots killed her or they were fired to make sure she was dead, they exist. The defense ignored this issue because there was no material to even try distorting to pretend he had a gun.

They allege Hillegas burned her body and property but have no evidence of Hillegas having any fires anywhere.  In contrast Steven Avery had fires on the very day she visited and in the ashes of those fires were found her remains and the charred remnants of her clothing and belongings.  Before such burned evidence was found Avery was expressly asked multiple times to describe what he did that day and he left out the fires which was the thing he did for the longest period of time so it is not credible he innocently forgot.  In his last interview with police he was expressly asked the last time he had any fires and he lied saying a week prior to Halbach's visit. The defense can't find anything even remotely similar against Hillegas.

In one news video it appears Hillegas has something on his hands but it is much too unclear to tell. Avery apologists speculated that they were scratches.  These marks are not visible in other video and he drew on his hands so it could be ink in addition to just being grainy video.  zellner got an expert to look at the grainy video and he decided the marks were scratches though no reputable scientist woudl make such an assessment from such video. worse still he assessed the marks were consistent with scratches from fingernails.  At the end of the day this is just speculation that is no more useful than speculation from Sutherst about the mantle. 

Even if he had scratches on his hands that alone would not establish his as a suspect anyway but they don't even have any proof he had scratches.

The defense found nothing that would permit them accusing Hillegas in a court and should have redacted his name in the court filings.  He has a strong case for defamation if he chooses to sue.

I could spend all day tearing apart the lies and nonsense the defense resorted to and why such crap has no ability at all to undermine Avery's conviction.  The evidence conclusively proves Avery's guilt those who doubt his guilt do so not because of any flaws in the evidence but rather because they are ignorant of the facts and evidence or if fully informed then because of their own mental makeup prevents them from being rational and objective.

I posted a summary of the evidence against Avery in the off topic section it is not yet approved but once it is I welcome you to read it and debate the case there.

Like Jeremy Bamber and Mark Lundy, Steve has a cast iron alibi in the matter of phone calls from his property he made when Teresa was already visiting Hillegas.

Avery had no phone alibi that helps him. He didn't use his phone during the time police say the crime was committed. He didn't use his phone between 2:35 and 4:35 and his claim of why he made the 4:35 call to Halbach makes zero sense.

Jeremy's claims about the phone don't help him either they hurt him severely establishing him as a liar. There is no proof that Nevill called him as he claimed. That is not airtight in any objective sense.

Lundy's call was not at the time of the murder so can't prove him innocent and provide an ironclad alibi.  If they were killed too soon after the call for him to be able to get there to commit the crimes because he was too far away THEN it would provide an ironclad alibi.

I am happy to debate with facts till the cows come home.
On Bamber, I would refer you to MikeG's best attempt, as architectural draughtsman, to get bullets in the correct flesh trajectory, to Nevill while still in the bedroom. Mike is a bright guy, but seems unwilling to concede he proved it was impossible for Nevill to be shot inside the  bedroom. This is all on the IA thread.

It is quite possible for him to have been shot in the bedroom but it is not possible to be shot and yet bullets or casings to get outside the bedroom unless moved by a human.

“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline David1819

Re: For Those That Believe JB Guilty...
« Reply #332 on: June 19, 2017, 07:11:01 PM »
Lundy and Avery have no Alibi's

From the time and location of Lundy's whereabouts you can infer a speedy getaway.

Avery is the last known person to see the victim alive. The latest evidence shows it was former boyfriend that led investigators to Hallbacs car. Which is interesting but it's certainly not going to prove he killed her.

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: For Those That Believe JB Guilty...
« Reply #333 on: June 19, 2017, 07:35:48 PM »
Lundy and Avery have no Alibi's

From the time and location of Lundy's whereabouts you can infer a speedy getaway.

Avery is the last known person to see the victim alive. The latest evidence shows it was former boyfriend that led investigators to Hallbacs car. Which is interesting but it's certainly not going to prove he killed her.

Pam and Nicole Sturm found the vehicle and notified police about such.

Avery's lawyer made unsupported 2 mutually exclusive allegations 1) that Hillegas (her boyfriend from high school and part of her freshman year of college) hid it and told the Sturms where to find it 2) that police found it themselves and told the Strums where to find it.  These allegations are not new they were the product of people who decided Avery is innocent and spend day in and day out making up new allegation they can think up.   That she takes such wild speculation and advances it without any evidentiary support says much about just how desperate his defense attorney is.  If she had anything valid she would not need to resort to tripe like that.

Avery's lawyer has also made up the allegation that Mrs. Zipperer was the last person to see Halbach alive.  His lawyer alleges Halbach's last appointment was with Zipperer and that a host of people lied (including numerous police, Mrs Zipperer and Avery's nephew Bobby).  She alleges that Zipperer and police lied about what the answering machine message Halbach left stated. She alleges the message stated Halbach was going to the Avery appointment first and all those who listened to the message concealed this. She has no evidence she just made the claim up from thin air. Naturally such an allegation without any evidence is worthless.

His lawyer is appearing in MAM2 and doing this to get as much publicity as she can get.  Her claims have no chance in hell in court they seem aimed at fooling the ignorant and weak minded who already support Avery. 

She even had him attest to a pack of new lies in an affidavit. Those lies lack credibility but can't be even evaluated since he would obviously have known them at the time of his trial and should have raised his claims then.

One of the lies is especially stupid- he claims his toothbrush was not in any of the crime scene photos and must have been stolen by police. One of the trial exhibits features said toothbrush his lawyer either didn't even look at the exhibits or knew it was a lie but hoped no one else would notice.  The nonsense going on is the most pathetic thing ever and taking away from actual injustices:

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Exhibit-206-bathroom-sink.jpg
 
« Last Edit: June 19, 2017, 07:42:17 PM by scipio_usmc »
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline David1819

Re: For Those That Believe JB Guilty...
« Reply #334 on: June 19, 2017, 07:58:41 PM »
It is quite possible for him to have been shot in the bedroom but it is not possible to be shot and yet bullets or casings to get outside the bedroom unless moved by a human.

Scip i have done some painstaking 3D reconstruction efforts on this particular area. The dimensions are all based on the police diagrams. This demonstrates the shots trajectories and the shell casings. All meshing in conformity to the evidence. While doing this, i could not think of a plausible way for how Nevill could get that shoulder shot while in the bedroom.


Offline scipio_usmc

Re: For Those That Believe JB Guilty...
« Reply #335 on: June 19, 2017, 08:21:39 PM »
Those images fail to take into account the shooting that police suggest. The shooter at the foot of the bed and Nevill either sitting up in bed or actually turned and sitting on the bed getting up.  All 4 shots to his left side are possible to be inflicted with him in such position and the shooter at the foot of the bed.

“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline adam

Re: For Those That Believe JB Guilty...
« Reply #336 on: June 19, 2017, 08:47:38 PM »
David's magical side ejecting & bouncing casings are not the only magical things from that rifle.

The bullets were not bad either. All hitting a moving Nevill from several feet away. Twice in the face. Although the evidence states the two face shots were from inches away. 
« Last Edit: June 19, 2017, 08:55:49 PM by adam »

Offline Samson

Re: For Those That Believe JB Guilty...
« Reply #337 on: June 19, 2017, 10:13:40 PM »
Lundy and Avery have no Alibi's

From the time and location of Lundy's whereabouts you can infer a speedy getaway.

Avery is the last known person to see the victim alive. The latest evidence shows it was former boyfriend that led investigators to Hallbacs car. Which is interesting but it's certainly not going to prove he killed her.
Lundy Avery and Bamber have complete alibis and forensically clean presentations after the crimes done by others.

Lundy is easy to deal with.
The prosecution alleged in court that he could cover about 490 kilometers with 58 liters of petrol, 60 km of casual driving, 2 careful journeys of 150 kms, and one 130 km journey at 100 kms per hour average which included multiple traffic lights and built up areas.  Race track tests show the car capable of consuming greater than 30 liters per 100.
I will not be tedious with the maths but that is a complete alibi

UNLESS the crown alleges he refueled with hidden jerry cans. They have not done so in any court proceeding so are not allowed to at appeal. The panel will have to state in writing that he did so at appeal, and they will not because it is unlawful to do so.
That is the most straightforward layman's alibi but like Bamber he was not at the crime scene for multiple forensic reasons. I can say that unknown male dna was found under the fingernails of the victim, and that the autopsy describes multiple DEFENSIVE wounds sustained by the victim. foreign dna under fingernails disappears fast with normal hygiene. Normal hygiene is precluded by death.

Avery made a 15 minute phone call, pedantic and loving to Jodi in jail at 5 pm.
HOW?
You can not remove flesh from bones in a fire pit, you attain only a charred corpse.
5 tyres steel belts were recovered, one with embedded bone material. 5 tyres are obviously woefully inadequate fuel, but this is only one certain plank that exonerates Avery. I will deal with Scipio's authoritarian concoction at great length when I have time.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2017, 10:31:30 PM by Samson »

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: For Those That Believe JB Guilty...
« Reply #338 on: June 19, 2017, 10:21:31 PM »
Avery made a 15 minute phone call, pedantic and loving to Jodi in jail at 5 pm.
HOW?
You can not remove flesh from bones in a fire pit, you attain only a charred corpse.

How does speaking to her on the phone around 5PM provide an alibi for killing her between 2:45-4pm?

As for pit fires they will indeed burn away flesh especially when fed by 10 plus tires.
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline Samson

Re: For Those That Believe JB Guilty...
« Reply #339 on: June 20, 2017, 02:22:25 AM »
How does speaking to her on the phone around 5PM provide an alibi for killing her between 2:45-4pm?

As for pit fires they will indeed burn away flesh especially when fed by 10 plus tires.
I guess we can both agree if Bamber and Avery are innocent evidence was planted in both cases.
Do you have an Avery link that develops your theory? Have you read Zellner's first 200 pages? I am genuinely interested.

Offline adam

Re: For Those That Believe JB Guilty...
« Reply #340 on: June 20, 2017, 09:18:56 AM »
There would have to be an industrial scale planting of evidence. As my recent thread has shown.

Mike has suggested the police shot Sheila. Then carried her from the bed to the floor. Putting the bible onto Sheila's blood after it had dripped onto the carpet. This being done before the photograoher arrived.

Mike's theory would also explain how Sheila's legs were pulled on the carpet after the second shot. Unfortunately it seems Mike is not going to release his picture of Sheila on the bed.

Bamber has accused the relatives, but not the police of fabricating the silencer.  Altnough the relatives could not have achived this without a lot of police assistance.

The 360 campaign was set up several months ago to go through every piece of evidence at trial. Requesting £6,000 in donations. There has been no feedback from them.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2017, 09:22:02 AM by adam »

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: For Those That Believe JB Guilty...
« Reply #341 on: June 20, 2017, 05:34:50 PM »
I guess we can both agree if Bamber and Avery are innocent evidence was planted in both cases.
Do you have an Avery link that develops your theory? Have you read Zellner's first 200 pages? I am genuinely interested.

Yes I read it and the exhibits that is how I know she distorted so much. She took supposition from experts and then misrepresented what they said because their supposition was not strong enough.  She also grossly misrepresented various facts of the case.  She provided very little legal analysis basically ignoring the legal issues that matter tremendously. As you know from the Bamber case you need new science or things that could not have reasonably been known previously in order to be able  to raise it on appeal.  Moreover, in Wisconsin, if such things were known at the time of a prior appeal you need to establish good cause for not raising such at the prior appeal. Avery already filed a post conviction motion, it should have included everything arguable and he needs good cause for not including anything she is raising now.  She didn't go through each thing she is arguing establishing good cause because she can't. That's fatal to most of the arguments she is making, there is no reason to even get to the merits and she knows it which is why I believe she just made the arguments for the sake of MAM2.  It provides material for MAM2 (or MAM3) plus she wants people to watch her in MAM2 and beyond only if she filed this would many continue to believe Avery is innocent and watch it and continue to follow her unprofessional tweets.

Her garbage is worthless on the merits as well.

She has nothing that under the Denny line of cases would permit her accusing Hillegas in court. She claims she met Denny but failed to actually discuss the caselaw in detail and explain how the things she came up with met it.  She even factually distorted tremendously lying about him being a recent boyfriend, they broke up when they were freshman in college, and she thus misrepresented him as the abusive boyfriend that she had as a college senior though it wasn't. She also misrepresented that the victim and her roommate were currently involved in a sexual relationship though it was in the past. This is important because she claimed Hillegas was jealous of their current relationship and fought with her and killed her over it because he wanted her back.  There is no evidence he wanted her back, that was also simply wild speculation.  He didn't own a gun and there was nothing to actually tie him to the crime that would meet Denny which is why she avoided discussing it in detail like required.  She knows she will lose but just wanted to get this crap out there in a filing where she is protected from defamation. She never spoke to the family to find out if they did in fact tell Hillegas that the light on Halbach's vehicle was damaged prior to her going missing. They simply branded him a liar by going to the insurance company to ask if she filed a claim back in 2005.  They said they had no record of it which is different from she didn't do it.  The retention record policy of companies is usually 12 years so they already would have been destroyed, especially since she died.  Moreover, the family could have been in error and thought she filed a claim though she didn't.  The important issue is whether it was damaged and the family told Hillegas such.  She never even investigated that.  The defense at trial could have asked the victim's mother and brother if it was damaged prior but chose not to.  The damage was irrelevant.  Even if made by the killer while parking the vehicle on the Avery lot it would fail to prove who the killer was. 

Some things she argues are so stupid it boggles the mind.  For instance lying about Hillegas being on the very property with police and suggesting that he planted the human remains around a big dog right under their noses.  Did he hide the remains in his pants pocket?  In the meantime he wasn't allowed on the Avery lot he was searching with other civilians in areas adjacent to the Avery property. Which leads to one of the dumbest things of all that she argued. Someone who was part of the Hillegas search group wrote Kiligus group on a map (of an area outside of the Avery property) because he misheard the name.  She alleged that Hillegas was using the fake name Kiligus to conceal he was part of that search.  The only thing that group found was a condom wrapper that wound up being no use to the investigation.  Making up such stupid things tremendously undermines her credibility.


Her allegation that Avery left blood in his sink because he was running late and didn't have time to turn the tap on, that within minutes of leaving Hillegas ran in his trailer with a dropper and sucked up the blood to plant in Halbach's vehicle to frame him is truly absurd. To say Avery noticed the blood missing and knew it was used to frame him but his lawyers refused to argue it and committed malpractice is even more absurd. Hoping to establish ineffective assistance of counsel for not making this allegation at trial is frankly a joke.

The claims about the bullets are just as bad.  She lied about what the prosecution argued to create a strawman argument and then to say that the strawman argument was refuted.  She did this because the expert failed to refute what was actually argued at trial.

She lied and said that at trial the prosecution argued the 2 bullets found in the garage exited Halbach's skull. She further said her experts proved that the bullet with Halbach's DNA on it could not have exited her skull because no bone was found embedded and it would have been if it exited her skull.

The prosecution argued that she was shot at least 2 times in the head and likely shot many more times given the large number of spent casings.  They argued the bullet with her DNA either grazed or exited her (that is the only way her DNA would get on it) but there was no way to tell what part of the body suffered such wound since her body was destroyed.  From the Bamber case you can see how with an intact body all wounds can be observed and recorded. 
 
Her expert's opinion was shaky and not proven to be scientifically valid.  His testing simply proved that bone could be embedded not that it will always be embedded in a bullet fragment that goes through bone.  It would take far more advanced testing to prove bone will always be embedded.  Moreover, the expert failed to do testing of the exact wash the lab used on the bullet.  It would take extensive testing to prove that the exact wash under no circumstances will wash away bone particles. Doing limited testing of different chemicals than those used fails to establish anything. But even if such were proven that bone particles would have to be present on a bullet fragment when a bullet passes through bone such would be worthless to Avery. All that would prove is that the bullet didn't pass through bone, the bullet still could have grazed her or passed through soft tissue. The failure to find bone would not be able to prove the bullet didn't strike her which is what matters.

The expert also claimed that the crime lab put some kind of sticky material on the bullet fragment to make it easier to grasp and stuck to this material was wood dust and other particles. If true that such substance was placed there by the lab then that means any tiny particles adhering to it got there after the crime.  Zellner made various arguments about these particles that are totally invalid since they can't have gotten there until after the lab placed the material on the bullet fragment. 

Every argument she makes repeats the pattern of these. She distorts what the evidence she has proves and makes up some ridiculous claim of how the trial defense was inept for not advancing the bogus argument she had conjured up.

She also had Avery sign an affidavit with numerous bogus claims.  For instance he now claims he gave Dawn his own address though the address Dawn recorded on the sheet was Barb Janda's address. They allege Dawn altered this later and lied to make it appear Avery was pretending to be Janda. This is all crap that she knows it is too late to try arguing but wants the public to believe this nonsense even as it will fail in court.

He also claimed in his affidavit that Johnson fired his gun into gopher holes near the garage and bullets and casings sometimes got in the garage.  How could he have witnessed that when he was in jail the entire time that Johnson lived on the property?   Well before he got out of jail Johnson moved out.  In fact, Johnson said he last fired anything there in 1999.  She knew his claim didn't belong in the affidavit and that it would not be used in court she just put it there for propaganda purposes.  She should have known about the trial exhibit photo showing his toothbrush.  Either she is extremely inept or dishonest and hoped no one would actually look at the photos to see that Avery lied about his toothbrush being stolen before the photos were taken.  This was another argument worthless in court but used for propaganda purposes.

His most significant claim was that he witnesses Wiegert pocket a groin swab. This was used to allege that Wiegert held on to it for months and replaced the hood swab with the groin swab. He didn't make any such claim to his trial lawyers. This was something recently thought up. He should have raised it prior if hea really observed such. The lab received the hood swab sealed there was no evidence that Wiegert cut open the bag and resealed it.  Only the delusional would believe this nonsense.

Her experts admitted that the amount of touch DNA left on object varies widely.  There is no way to quantify how much will be left. None can be left, a tiny amount or an amount that is small but still quite significant.  This right there ends the ability to say the amount of DNA found on the key was too much to be touch DNA. They did worthless testing (allegedly) having Avery hold the key for 12 minutes. Then they looked at the amount of DNA on it and said that the amount found on the key by the lab was much more so it must have been planted.  The killer didn't just hold the key one time.  The kill touched the key, then put it in an ignition and turned it rubbing it hard not just holding it.  The killer also turned the ignition off. We don't know how many times the killer did this.  The killer was most likely sweating whereas Avery was not when in jail just holding it.  He eventually held it while walking all the way back to his trailer and touched it inside his trailer who knows how many times.  There is no way to assess how much DNA would get on it under those circumstances.  The scientific rule is that the amount of DNA left varies widely from nonsense to a significant amount and her experts failed miserably at establishing the amount was too much to be touch DNA.  Worse still, it didn't have to be touch DNA only. It could have been blood, saliva, touch DNA or a mixture of all 3.  She alleged that her expert did testing that proved the DNA on the key was not blood or saliva based. Her expert did no such testing the following was an out and out lie on her part:

"Dr. Reich has determined that the source of the DNA on the key, Item C, was not blood...Dr. Reich determined that the DNA extracted from the swab of the Toyota sub-key came from skin cells of Mr. Avery."

The brain fingerprinting is so ridiculous I can't believe she even claimed that. Worse still she said that Avery's prior appellate counsel was negligent for not using it in his prior appeal and her proof that the technology existed at the time of his prior appeal is a letter from a prisoner telling Avery to get brain fingerprinting done. That letter shows the convict didn't even know what he was talking about he claimed it was a new form of DNA.  So wee have another lie from her, par for the course...


The remainder of her claims were simply unsupported speculation (and out and out lies) that fails to prove he is innocent and provides no basis to vacate his conviction.

I knew she would not be able to come up with anything but the brief was far worse than I even anticipated.

Since I spent months studying all the evidence in this case I recognize many lies that the public wouldn't which is what she is banking on.

Since we are getting away form making comparisons to Bamber and getting into specifics I think it is best to continue the discussion here, the mods have approved it:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8315.0

Anything in particular in the brief you want to discuss with specificity or any facts you want to discuss in specificity I am willing address.

A comparison of what Zellner did to this case would be a lawyer reading all the crap on blue, asking the public to send in any suggestions and then taking all that crap and putting it in a brief requesting an appeal on the basis of such speculation and then the lawyer doing a television series about it.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2017, 05:41:55 PM by scipio_usmc »
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline Samson

Re: For Those That Believe JB Guilty...
« Reply #342 on: June 20, 2017, 05:53:14 PM »
Thank you, will read and respond.....

Offline Caroline

Re: For Those That Believe JB Guilty...
« Reply #343 on: June 20, 2017, 09:09:09 PM »
Lundy Avery and Bamber have complete alibis and forensically clean presentations after the crimes done by others.

Lundy is easy to deal with.
The prosecution alleged in court that he could cover about 490 kilometers with 58 liters of petrol, 60 km of casual driving, 2 careful journeys of 150 kms, and one 130 km journey at 100 kms per hour average which included multiple traffic lights and built up areas.  Race track tests show the car capable of consuming greater than 30 liters per 100.
I will not be tedious with the maths but that is a complete alibi

UNLESS the crown alleges he refueled with hidden jerry cans. They have not done so in any court proceeding so are not allowed to at appeal. The panel will have to state in writing that he did so at appeal, and they will not because it is unlawful to do so.
That is the most straightforward layman's alibi but like Bamber he was not at the crime scene for multiple forensic reasons. I can say that unknown male dna was found under the fingernails of the victim, and that the autopsy describes multiple DEFENSIVE wounds sustained by the victim. foreign dna under fingernails disappears fast with normal hygiene. Normal hygiene is precluded by death.

Avery made a 15 minute phone call, pedantic and loving to Jodi in jail at 5 pm.
HOW?
You can not remove flesh from bones in a fire pit, you attain only a charred corpse.
5 tyres steel belts were recovered, one with embedded bone material. 5 tyres are obviously woefully inadequate fuel, but this is only one certain plank that exonerates Avery. I will deal with Scipio's authoritarian concoction at great length when I have time.

Bamber doesn't have an alibi, he has a story that only a dead man can verify and Sheila was forensically clean - no trace of any other victims blood was found on her. Bamber had time to clean himself up.

Offline Samson

Re: For Those That Believe JB Guilty...
« Reply #344 on: June 20, 2017, 10:36:06 PM »
Bamber doesn't have an alibi, he has a story that only a dead man can verify and Sheila was forensically clean - no trace of any other victims blood was found on her. Bamber had time to clean himself up.
What we do not know is what evidence was keenly sought from Sheila. The good man Taff Jones resolved the crime immediately. It walked looked and quacked like a duck.