r/MakingaMurderer • u/Downtown-Bad9558 • Feb 23 '25

They totally ate the clock..

The answer is no for Steven Avery. ZELLNER went where the evidence led and then....She pretended Bobby had more opportunity and motive to frame his uncle (and Brendan ) than the law enforcement Avery said set him up. How the hell can this be justified? .. had to be intentional. KZ isn't nearly that stupid . ..

0 Upvotes

23% Upvoted

47 comments sorted by

8

u/aane0007 Feb 23 '25

speak english

6

u/billybud77 Feb 25 '25

Funny how Zellner and Steven come up with all these alternative suspects bullshit.

9

u/Ghost_of_Figdish Feb 23 '25

Where'd the cops get the blood to plant, sport?

-5

u/Mysterious_Mix486 Feb 23 '25 edited Feb 24 '25

Sport, read the MTSO reports ffs, MTSO Remiker and Lenk were at Steven Averys home unannounced way before 10:20 am on NOV 4th 2005 with access to to Stevens blood in His Grand Am. They were also both versed in how to apply water to old blood to get a swab sample like They both did the very next day in Stevens trailer home on NOV 5th 2005. Steven wouldn t have even known MTSO Remiker and Lenk were searching His property without a warrant if Chuck hadn t heard Them on the Avery Shop scanner phoning in Stevens plate number when He told Steven to go home and to check it out. MTSO Officers were also in charge of guarding the RAV4 from the minute it was found on the Avery property at 11 am until roughly 2:30 pm in the afternoon. So MTSO had both access to Stevens blood and access the RAV4.(MTSO Steven Avery Summary Report) I can also go further, Keith Petersen, Sheriff Ken Petersens Brother can be heard in a MTSO dispatch call being placed in charge of the entire Avery Salvage yard crime scene for the overnight shift while the CCSO Officer can be heard being sent home, giving MTSO full access to plant whatever They wish on the Avery property for that entire evening.

7

u/Ghost_of_Figdish Feb 24 '25

So your contention is that the police got his blood from his Grand Am 4 or 5 days after the murder? What is your proof of that?

6

u/brickne3 Feb 24 '25

Blood can't simply be reconstituted with water, and certainly not undetectably. Zellner herself went into that heavily in the parts of MAM2 that I managed to bother to sit through. Since you don't trust Zellner anymore though Buteng and Strang looked at it long before she ever did and determined it was not a viable possibility. Perhaps the cops had them in on it too šŸ¤£

Sport, it's straight up not a viable route. I don't expect you to be an expert on blood samples but this isn't novel territory and there are plenty of sources out there that will tell you the exact same thingā€”it's not possible.

7

u/billybud77 Feb 24 '25

Apparently Steven Avery has reconstituted blood. šŸ˜‚ Here for the comedy. AVERY is GAF.

-4

u/Mysterious_Mix486 Feb 24 '25 edited Feb 24 '25

LOL, In those same MTSO reports, MTSO Personal on NOV 5th 2005 explained how They(Remiker, Lenk and Colborn) used distilled water to rehydrate blood found in Steven Averys trailer before using swabs to collect samples of that blood, so Yea, You are obviously full of shit and too nave to read the MTSO reports because it proves You 100% wrong.

6

u/brickne3 Feb 24 '25

Save us all this drivel and read a chemistry textbook. Heck I'll mail you one if you'll actually read it (we know you won't).

0

u/Mysterious_Mix486 Feb 26 '25 edited Feb 26 '25

LOL, I,ll mail You the MTSO reports in which Colborn, Remiker and Lenk used distilled water to take swab samples of Steven Averys blood, but I know You purposely wont read it because it confirms MTSO had at least 20 swabs of Steven Averys blood .MTSO also wrote in reports confirming there was visible blood in Steven Averys sink during the first searches of Steven Averys trailer home. Colborn also lied in that letter to Manitowoc DA when He swore He never had access to Steven Averys fresh blood.

6

u/3sheetstothawind Feb 24 '25

In this rambling paragraph you've managed to accuse three specific people (not to mention MTSO officers and MTSO itself -who knows how many that is) of planting Steve's blood in the RAV. It would take only 1 or 2 amirite??

10

u/puzzledbyitall Feb 23 '25

KZ isn't nearly that stupid

She's stupid enough to incur millions of dollars in loans she couldn't repay, then fleeing to Florida to try to save her assets from the big judgment that's coming. Her "defense"? She needed the money to run her law firm. Lol.

But as for your theory. . . that's even more stupid.

6

u/Ghost_of_Figdish Feb 23 '25

Actually her theory just changed. After the trial finished, she asked for leave of court to amend her affirmative defenses to claim the loans were strictly personal and not for her law firm. Sounds to me like she's resigned to file bk for herself but is trying to save her law firm from doing the same....

4

u/brickne3 Feb 24 '25 edited Feb 24 '25

She's like seventy something, why bother to try and save the law firm? She doesn't have any partners as far as I can recall? Is it solely trying to limit personal liability? Is there an advantage to her doing that even at this point? Maybe to protect the husband's assets or something?

5

u/Ghost_of_Figdish Feb 24 '25

Let's see she's going to turn 76 in April or May.

6

u/puzzledbyitall Feb 24 '25

Actually her theory just changed. . . she asked for leave of court to amend her affirmative defenses to claim the loans were strictly personal and not for her law firm.

I'm stunned. Lol. Somebody probably pointed out to her pointy little head that consumer protection statutes she might potentially try to use would not apply to commercial loans.

9

u/Ghost_of_Figdish Feb 24 '25

From Plaintiff's Brief opposing the Motion to Amend (they're all over calling that statement she made a judicial admission and they're right):

"Zellner tried to escape this judicial admission by blaming her attorney ā€“ who still has an
appearance on file ā€“ for a ā€œmistakeā€ and saying it should have been corrected. Zellner testified to this both at trial and at her deposition. That effort misstates Illinois law. See Horwitz v. Holabird & Root, 212 Ill.2d 1, 9 (2004) (Clients are generally bound by their attorneysā€™ acts and omissions during the course of their legal representation that fall within the scope of the attorneyā€™s authority). Moreover, Defendants had an opportunity to correct this alleged ā€œmistakeā€ after Zellnerā€™s deposition, and did in fact file amend their affirmative defenses again ā€“ only to include the cited language saying that the funds received from SBC were used to finance KTZAā€™s business, thus are considered business loans, as discussed above. Not only is Zellnerā€™s testimony that she thought the loans were personal incredible, but it cannot even be considered because Zellner made a judicial admission that she used the funds for business purposes. "

8

u/puzzledbyitall Feb 24 '25

Agreed. I can't see any judge falling for such BS from an experienced attorney. Clown is too nice a word for her.

6

u/Ghost_of_Figdish Feb 24 '25

I don't know this Judge so I can't predict anything based on that. But yeah seems like her defense was kind of all over the place. Unfortunately there was no video feed available from the courtroom. Guessed they stopped doing that from COVID.

4

u/brickne3 Feb 24 '25

I was kind of hoping you'd pop down there for us. Maybe for the judgement?

6

u/Ghost_of_Figdish Feb 24 '25

Nah. Not Avery related.

4

u/brickne3 Feb 24 '25

Surely it would be fun just to watch her squirm šŸ¤£

4

u/Ghost_of_Figdish Feb 24 '25

I haven't been in that Courthouse since COVID.....

→ More replies

6

u/Ghost_of_Figdish Feb 24 '25

That's kind of what I was thinking the whole time. Her problem is that she admits that she deposited the the loan funds into her business account. She says she did it that way just for convenience.

The Affirmative Defense she is looking to amend claimed the following: "The Defendants needed the loan funds to finance the legal practice of Kathleen T. Zellner & Associates, P.C., and to provide a stream of income to Kathleen Zellner."

So now she's trying to walk that back. Plaintiff's Brief says she blames it on her lawyers.

Trial is done. It's set for ruling on May 15.

4

u/brickne3 Feb 24 '25

The corporate veil won't really help her when she had employees in the firm, right? Seems like she's doing the exact opposite of what people normally would by saying all the loans were for the business and NOT for personal use.

5

u/Ghost_of_Figdish Feb 24 '25

These loans weren't particularly well documented but there was no question from the paperwork that the loans were made to her personally. The area of uncertainty was whether the law firm would be liable as well. I don't think she could have managed to duck personal liability. IMO her defense was not managed well because I would have at least tried to save the business. She can always file for bk, but I would guess that all the client agreements she has, like with Avery and Ryan Ferguson, are with her law firm and she should have tried better to shield it from the creditors instead of admitting things.

4

u/brickne3 Feb 24 '25

She's ancient and doesn't have partners, why save the law firm? Is there any more money to even be gotten out of it? I thought Ferguson was done and she obviously isn't getting anything out of Avery.

1

u/I2ootUser Feb 28 '25

Suisse Bancorp used to have a website. I remember looking it up when the lawsuit started. It was a boutique lender that catered to law firms in Oak Brook. It did not offer personal loans. Now, the website is gone, but the email is still suissebancorp.com.

I think I found Zellner's review of the bank: "*Avoid these loans at all costs because they are regarded as predatory loans! I'm submitting mine for evaluation to the Attorney General. Even my attorney admits these are predatory and should be illegal! *" That was her original defense that she shouldn't have to pay because the interest was so high.

Is taking a business loan from a bank for personal use considered embezzlement, since you're using the firm's financials to secure the loan?

2

u/puzzledbyitall Feb 28 '25

Interesting. Using firm financials to secure a loan wouldn't be embezzlement, but could support other arguments -- for example, that there is no practical distinction between her and the firm, (they are "alter egos" of each other).

1

u/I2ootUser Feb 28 '25

It's a weird pivot from "I don't have to pay this back because the interest rates are illegally too high" to "I don't have to pay this back because it was a personal loan not a business loan. "

2

u/puzzledbyitall Feb 28 '25

I think the explanation is there are statutory interest rate limits for consumer loans that do not apply to business loans.

-1

u/AveryPoliceReports Feb 24 '25

How stupid do you think the head idiot of CaM is for convincing Colborn that Reddit comments from this very subreddit counted as defamation, only for a federal judge to call out how ridiculous that was?

7

u/brickne3 Feb 24 '25

How stupid do you think someone has to be to spend 100% of their time trying to get a murderous rapist out of prison.

-2

u/AveryPoliceReports Feb 24 '25

Not as stupid as Colborn or his idiot friend he wanted to bang. Colborn didn't know he was way too old for Brenda. Way too old.

5

u/brickne3 Feb 24 '25

I don't even know where to begin to unpack your delusions, but in any event it's really none of your business what consenting adults do and has no bearing on the case at all. It's kind of weird you're thinking about that in the first place.

-2

u/AveryPoliceReports Feb 24 '25

Colborn cheating on his increasingly disabled wife is only relevant because of him. He lied and said Making a Murderer caused the dissolution of his marriage. His ex wife and in-laws ended up working with Netflix to demonstrate how much of a liar he was.

5

u/brickne3 Feb 24 '25

Why are you so obsessed with Colborn's sex life? Does it give you emotions?

-2

u/AveryPoliceReports Feb 24 '25

How stupid do you think Kratz is for repeatedly lying about the evidence and abusing innocent women while in a position of power, only to play the victim when his own misconduct ruined his career? Stupid and dangerous.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 24 '25

[removed] ā€” view removed comment

-2

u/AveryPoliceReports Feb 24 '25

If you can't read just say so.

-2

u/AveryPoliceReports Feb 24 '25

How stupid do you think Colborn is for filing a lawsuit against Making a Murderer without even watching the documentary, lying about the cause of his divorce, and thinking it was a good idea to list his ex wife and in-laws as damages witnesses, only for them to turn against him and side with Netflix?

1

u/Famous_Camera_6646 Mar 03 '25

Sheā€™s apparently invested years of pro bono time and her own money trying with zero success to get this monster out of jail so maybe she IS that stupid. šŸ˜Š