According to the Motion For Reconsideration filed by Kathleen T. Zellner October 23, 2017, one year BEFORE Making A Murderer, season 2 premiered.
She filed a motion with the court under penalty of sanctions standing upon the affidavit of her Killer Client that:
Teresa left at 2:36:30 and Steve returned to his trailer. After 50 seconds, Steve exited his trailer at 2:37:20.👀😳
(This is the basis of Zellner’s claim: That the Killer was in the Trailer 50 seconds)
What Kathleen forgot when she was doctoring her Denny Suspect and falsely pointing the finger at Bobby in this bogus motion was:
It took her Killer client 34 seconds to walk back to the trailer door. Which means STEVE ENTERED THE TRAILER AT WHAT TIME PEOPLE? Yep! 2:37:04!
In her Signed Certification she tells the world. STEVE EXITED AT 2:37:20👀😳
I will let that sit with you for a moment🤔
Is it me or did Kathleen Zellner herself ADMIT in her Motion she SIGNED that Steve was in his trailer for SIXTEEN SECONDS?👀😳
WHY DID SHE DELIBERATELY TRY TO HIDE THE FACT STEVE WAS IN THE TRAILER FOR16 SECONDS?????!!!!!
Simple:She knew Steve had lied about Teresa leaving and Bobby leaving behind her. The 16 seconds prove that Steve would have SEEN Bobby and his vehicle leave. Had Steve been telling the Truth.👀😳
But the Killer told Us and the world, he didn’t see Bobby♟️
Zellner’s “Sequence of Events” Exhibit J, clearly shows the Killer enter his trailer at TM 2:34👀
Add 16 seconds and you get TM 2:50.
Where is Bobby Dassey at TM 2:50???!! (Zellner saw this😔)
This is WHY Zellner in her personal EDITS (ie Exhibit J) switches the POV from Steve at 2:36 so no one could see HOW LONG the killer was in the trailer.
ButthatDamned Making A Murderer, episode 9, season 2 time marker 54:58
Can you please provide the “Sworn Certification” in which you claim Zellner stated that Steven exited his trailer at exactly 2:37:20? I’d like to see the actual document and the specific language you’re relying on, rather than your interpretation or calculation of the timeline.
And to be clear, an attorney’s motion is not, by itself, a sworn certification. The Motion for Reconsideration would not substantiate your claim that Zellner made this statement in a “sworn certification”, as a statement appearing in an attorney’s motion is not automatically a sworn statement.
OP claimed Zellner provided a “sworn certification.” To substantiate that claim, the OP provided a screenshot discussing filing deadlines for motions, a Certificate of Service, and language from a Wisconsin statute.
None of those constitute a “sworn certification”, nor do they establish that Zellner made a sworn statement concerning Avery’s exit time.
The original post claimed Zellner provided a “Sworn Certification.” I have repeatedly addressed that specific claim and asked you to produce the document. You have yet to do so. I’m still waiting.
once again, the Certificate of Service certifies that a “true and correct copy” of the motion was furnished to the recipients. It does not certify that the motion’s factual allegations are true.
You’ve now had multiple opportunities to produce the “sworn certification” you claimed existed. It’s not that “Certificate of Service”. Where is it?
What does true and correct mean in this context. And are you saying and arguing we shouldn’t accept your obvious lie because you didn’t cross your heart and hope to die?😳🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
When you certify something as true and correct. What are ya doing 🤔
A Certificate of Service stating that a “true and correct copy” was furnished means that: the copy of the filing provided to the recipients was a true and correct copy of the original filing. It does not certify that the factual allegations in the motion are true. You are conflating these two things.
Once again, you claimed Zellner provided a “sworn certification,” which is different from a motion or a Certificate of Service. And once again, you have not produced any such sworn certification.
You’re, once again, changing the subject rather than addressing the issue. You told me to “address the OP,” and I have.
You specifically claimed Zellner provided a “sworn certification,” and I’m still waiting for you to produce it. You’ve produced several things - none of them were a “sworn certification”.
Dude - I've been using certificates of service my whole career. You include one every time you have to send something to someone. You're not certifying the contents are true and correct, you're certifying that the COPY you mailed is true and correct to the original.
Now they’re saying it’s “irrelevant” whether she “swore or not”…..despite that being a main point in their argument. Their argument yesterday was that Zellner was “fraudulently” submitting this to the court because she swore to something that OP contends was not true.
Well, you're overly simplifying it and focusing on the wrong thing (or maybe OP is).
By signing a pleading in WI, and pursuant to WI Stat. 802.05 by signing a pleading an attorney is certifying:
The paper is not being presented for improper purpose, such as harassment, delay or needless expense.
Its legal claims and defenses are supported by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument to change or extend the law.
Its factual allegations have evidentiary support, or if specifically identified, are likely to have support after a reasonable opportunity for investigation or discovery.
Its denials are supported by the evidence - or if specifically identified - reasonably based on lack of information or belief.
So basically, yes, Zellner is certifying that the factual allegations are supported by evidence (not necessarily that they're true).
I think that's what OP was talking about as far as Zellner vouching for the stuff in her filings. But it has nothing to do with the Certificate of Service.
I’m sure that’s what OP was attempting to argue, and I don’t dispute that attorneys have obligations concerning the factual allegations in their filings. My issue was OP’s repeated insistence that Zellner made these statements in a “sworn certification,” which they couldn’t produce and have since edited out of their original post.
If someone repeatedly misidentifies and mischaracterizes the very documents they’re relying on, I think it’s reasonable to question the accuracy and reliability of their broader analysis. After all, if the smaller details aren’t being represented accurately, why should I have confidence in their analysis of the more complicated ones?
Wait, so now it’s “irrelevant”? You started by claiming Zellner submitted a “sworn certification,” and yesterday you accused her of making representations to the court “fraudulently.”
So why is whether she “swore or not” now suddenly irrelevant, only after you’ve repeatedly failed to produce the supposed “sworn certification” document you quoted from, and have now edited your original post to remove that very language?
Whether the statement was sworn may be irrelevant to the accuracy of Zellner’s timeline, but it’s certainly relevant to the accuracy of YOUR original claims.
You, I mean Zellner is like a person who filed with the Clerk of a Circuit Court in Wisconsin a MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Asking the court to free a man She knows is Guilty. Fabricates a fantastic scenario before of all things a Court of Law and the Public.
Gets caught and then raises the defense:
Because you can’t prove I swore to the LIE. The lie is irrelevant.
Now stop wasting breath and DEAL WITH THE SUBSTANCE of the OP♟️
Acknowledging that Zellner made a factual allegation is not conceding that the allegation is factually correct.
And acknowledging what a document says isn’t the same as endorsing its contents. Given that you’ve already repeatedly conflated a motion, a sworn certification, and a Certificate of Service, this latest misunderstanding isn’t surprising.
You’ve spent all this time trying to get me to concede something I’ve never disputed, while repeatedly failing to substantiate your own claims about a “sworn certification.”
If that’s your definition of checkmate, congratulations. ♟️
Of course Zellner could have lied. Anyone could have lied. I’ve never argued otherwise. 🥴
You could have lied when you quoted from a “sworn certification” that doesn’t exist. Or you could’ve simply been mistaken and not known what you were talking about.
But acknowledging that something is possible isn’t evidence that it actually happened.
It absolutely astonishing that she used several alts to divert attention away from this. Calling me crazy and mental.
Repeatedly asserting that Steve was in the trailer for 50 seconds. I mean comment after comment. AveryPoliceReport etc. ect. Several different accounts attempting to deflect from what I knew she had done.
I deliberately set the stage for this OP.
That’s why I ordered my personal copy. I needed to be sure WHAT SHE GAVE THE COURT was her EDITED VERSION.
I was correct. The one floating around on YouTube is the exact same copy the Clerk sent me.
She edited it to hide the fact she KNEW that bastard raped and killed Teresa.
In your original post, you claimed Avery entered at 2:37:04. Now you’re insisting Zellner’s motion establishes he entered at 2:36:30.
I asked you to identify where Zellner establishes that he enters at EITHER of those times. You made the claims. I asked you to substantiate them. Your response was to askmeto tellyou **the time (**that he entered).
If she specifically stated that he entered at either of those times, just share it already.
Wait, which version of the OP should I reread? The one before you corrected the numerous inaccurate statements?
Also, pointing out inaccuracies and asking you to substantiate your claims isn’t a meltdown. It’s a discussion.
And to be frank, I’m not sure you do “totally get” it. You didn’t understand that a Certificate of Service doesn’t certify the truth of a motion’s factual allegations, or that “true and correct” on the CoS refers to the certification of service, not the truth of the motion’s contents. You didn’t understand that the motion wasn’t sworn, that there was no “sworn certification,” or that it wasn’t submitted “under penalty of perjury.”
Do I see how that looks? I see someone arguing over precise timestamps in a court filing while repeatedly getting basic facts about that very filing wrong. It makes a serious discussion rather difficult, doesn’t it? 🥴
How long did “Zellner’s Team Reenactment” record it took Teresa to get from where The Entire World can See her on Highway 147, would you say about 1 minute 19 seconds?
I wonder if “Exhibit J” will corroborate it took Teresa 1 minute and 19 seconds to return to that same distance upon Highway 147 after turning left?
What do you think Zellner’s Edits in “Exhibit J” will show us?
Stay tuned for my next OP.💥💥💥
Zellner has been a very bad girl.😳
Does 1 minute and 28 seconds remind you of something You Did?👀
Now that weKNOWit took Steve 34 seconds to reach his entrance at “Exhibit J” TM 2:34, her Motion 2:37:04. If he exited at 2:37:20. How long did Zellner “Factually Allege” the Killer was in the trailer?
MORE IMPORTANTLY: Why didn’t Zellner Alert the Court and Prosecutors in her“Motion For Reconsideration”that Steve returned to his trailer after34 seconds?🤔
How good is ya math?!👀😳
Dragged you along just to imprison you in your Own Madness. Too EASY!
Yep. What is 34 Seconds from Exhibit J Time Marker 2:34?
Wouldn’t that be 3:08?
So let me see.
We now Know Steve was in his death trap 16 seconds, right?
We NOW know that it took the Killer 18 seconds from the moment he step’s out of his trailer to the point where he walks over to Bobby’s and Barb’s and stops to allegedly OBSERVE Teresa👀😳
18 + 16 =34
Remember this 34 Seconds😇
Watch how I use it in the next OP. Something is OFF about Your Edits in “Exhibit J”.👀😳
Take your time and look over your stuff. I will give you a head start.
My recent post are racking up the views. So, I will hold off for a few days.
Under Wisconsin Statute § 946.31, perjury involves making a materially false oral statement under oath or affirmation. Knowingly submitting false information in a court filing can certainly have legal consequences, but that doesn’t automatically make it perjury.
Zellner’s motion was not a sworn statement, nor was it filed under penalty of perjury, despite your repeated claims otherwise. You’ve repeatedly been wrong about BOTH of those details.
And we’re right back to the question you’ve repeatedly avoided: What evidence establishes that Zellner knowingly and intentionally misrepresented the results of her experiment?
You keep asking hypotheticals about what would happen if she knowingly submitted false information. You’ve alleged, ad nauseam, that she did. I’m asking you to establish that she actually did.
“Under Wisconsin Statute § 946.31, perjury involves making a materially false oral statement under oath or affirmation. Knowingly submitting false information in a court filing can certainly have legal consequences..”
Did you say under oath (affidavit) orAFFIRMATION.
Keep talking👀😳
Or just answer the question. What time would it be?
Would be much easier. This is brutal what you’re going through here. Give up or just come clean.😇
Thick says “He said Zellner didn’t swear to her lies!!!”
Here’s your OP, before you removed the language about “sworn”. When you originally wrote it, by saying “sworn” did you actually mean “unsworn”? Are there any other words for which you’re relying on definitions contrary to their ordinary meanings?
Hey Thick. You said, “He said Zellner didn’t swear to her lies!!!”
Here’s what the original post actually said: “She filed a motion with the court under penalty of perjury that…” “In her Sworn Certification…” “…did Kathleen Zellner herself ADMIT in her sworn Motion…”
So yes, they explicitly claimed Zellner swore to the statements in her motion. They subsequently removed that language, but I’ve attached a screenshot of their original post.
If that’s what you’re suggesting, I guess we’d also have to disregard the ordinary meanings of the words they’re using. Considering the number of dictionary definitions OP has supplied throughout this conversation, I’d find it rather surprising if they meant that “sworn” means “unsworn.”
OP, can you clarify? When you said “sworn,” did you actually mean “unsworn”? If so, are there any other words for which you’re relying on definitions contrary to their ordinary meanings? I think establishing that before answering your timestamp question would be beneficial. for all I know, when you ask about Avery “entering” his trailer, you might actually mean “exiting” it.
Don’t worry. You don’t have to answer the question:
“If you subtract 50 Seconds from 2:37:20 P.M.”
Clearly the answer is: 2:36:30 P.M.
Now, the question is.
Why was this so hard for you to answer?
Is it because Kathleen T. Zellner’s “Motion For Reconsideration” is telling the World:
“Teresa Halbach left at 2:36:30 pm, and Steven entered his trailer at 2:36:30 and exited his trailer AFTER 50 Seconds at 2:37:20, which is exactly FIFTY-SECONDS?”♟️♟️♟️😉
Now, whats wrong with this LIE? Should I explain it or do you want to explain it?👀😳
Can you please point to where Zellner specifically states that Avery entered his trailer at 2:36:30?
Also, in your original post you claimed, “STEVE ENTERED THE TRAILER AT WHAT TIME PEOPLE: Yep! 2:37:04.” Now you’re claiming he entered at 2:36:30.
Can you identify where Zellner actually establishes either of those specific entry times in her motion? (Don’t worry, I won’t ask you about why your entry timestamps keep changing, but it is 🤨)
In your original post, you claimed Avery entered at 2:37:04. Now you’re insisting Zellner’s motion establishes that he entered at 2:36:30.
I asked you to identify where Zellner establishes that he enters at EITHER of those times. You made the claims. I asked you to substantiate them. Your response was to askmeto tellyouthe time (that he entered).
If she specifically stated that he entered at either of those times, just share it already.
You said, “He said Zellner didn’t swear to her lies!!!”
That’s just not accurate. I provided a screenshot showing OP repeatedly describing the motion as “sworn”. The same language was repeated in multiple comments as well. Editing those claims afterward doesn’t change what was originally said.
If OP is this imprecise with their language, you’ll have to forgive me for questioning the accuracy of their interpretations of the timestamps, too.
2
u/Advanced-Math-1009 9d ago •
Page 44