Making a Murderer Discussion Thread (Spoilers Likely)

[Silent]

For the ones who are interested, this is the list of exonerations Kathleen Zellner, Avery's current lawyer achieved so far:

Quote

Exonerations

• Ronnie Bullock spent over 10 years in prison for the kidnapping and rape of a 9-year-old girl and a 12-year-old girl. DNA testing revealed that he was not the culprit.

• Joseph Burrows spent nearly five years on death row until Zellner persuaded the real killer to confess at a post-conviction hearing.

• Billy Wardell spent over 10 years in prison for robbery and sexual assault. He was exonerated in 1997 when Zellner convinced prosecutors to agree to DNA testing. It cleared him as the perpetrator.

• Omar Saunders, Marcellius Bradford, Larry Ollins, and Calvin Ollins were convicted of the kidnapping, rape, and murder of Lori Roscetti, 23-year-old medical student. Bradford served six years in prison following a plea deal, but Saunders and the Ollins cousins had served nearly 15 years in prison before DNA testing was conducted that cleared all four men of the crimes.

• Kevin Fox was imprisoned for eight months for the murder of his daughter, Riley. Zellner represented Fox until he was cleared by DNA evidence. He won a $15.5 million civil verdict against the government, which was reduced to $8.1 million on appeal.

• Harold Hill and Dan Young were convicted of the 1990 rape and murder of Kathy Morgan. DNA testing performed in 2004 led to the release of both Hill and Young in 2005.

• Alprentiss Nash spent more than 17 years in prison for the murder of Leon Stroud. In 2010, Zellner convinced the Illinois Court of Appeals to order DNA testing of the ski mask worn by the perpetrator. This testing led to Nash's exoneration. It matched the real killer, who was already serving time for an unrelated drug crime. A federal civil rights lawsuit against the city of Chicago is pending.

• Cesar Munoz was convicted of the 1997 murder of his girlfriend, Magdaliz Rosario. Zellner's firm represented Munoz and won his acquittal in June 2013 after the fourth trial. (The first trial resulted in a hung jury, and the second two resulted in convictions but were reversed on appeal.)

• Lathierial Boyd served 23 years in prison for the murder of Michael Fleming and the attempted murder of Ricky Warner. His conviction was vacated in 2013 based on evidence of his innocence and prosecutors withholding exculpatory evidence. A $20 million civil rights lawsuit against the city of Chicago and several police officers is pending in federal court.

• Ryan Ferguson was arrested in 2004 for the 2001 murder of Columbia Tribune sports editor Kent Heitholt. He was convicted and sentenced to prison. He was released in November 2013 after Zellner and her firm convinced the only two witnesses against Ferguson, Charles Erickson and Jerry Trump, to admit that they had lied at trial. A $100 million civil rights lawsuit against Boone County, Missouri, the prosecutor, police officers, and others is pending in federal court.

• Jerry Hobbs spent five years in jail for the murder of his young daughter and her friend. In 2010, DNA testing led to the apprehension of the real killer. After obtaining his release, Zellner filed a civil rights lawsuit on his behalf, which settled for $7.75 million.

• James Edwards was convicted of two murders as the result of a false confession. He was exonerated for the murder of Fred Reckling after Zellner filed a motion for DNA testing; the results cleared Edwards as the murderer. Zellner is challenging his other murder conviction, as it was based on the same confession shown to be false because the DNA evidence excluded him as the perpetrator.

• Mario Casciaro was released in September of 2015 after serving four years for the murder of a teenager. The Illinois Second District Appellate Court reversed Casciaro's conviction for intimidation murder. The court ruled that the state had failed to prove the elements of intimidation and that none of the forensic evidence matched the state's theory presented to the jury at Casciaro's second trial. The first trial had resulted in a hung jury.

Besides wether one thinks Avery and Dassey are guilty, I think what the docu shows you is that the current system has big flaws. Think about it for the moment; the list above is just from one lawyer, and only the (big) cases she won. Imagine how many more there probably are (she's by far not the only lawyer), and even more how many more cases like this there are without anyone bothering or knowing about it. That speculative offcourse, but if just one lawyer shows us so many wrong imprisonments something seems seriously wrong. We all know a person should only be convicted if quilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. 

Anyway, that discussion is for another time since it might be slightly offtopic. It seems Avery has now one the best lawyers he could have gotten (at least looking at her track record and the 'awards' she won). Since her track record in wrongful convictions is so good, it makes me wonder if she really thinks there's hard evidence exonerating Avery (why would she take the risk if his quilt is crystal clear). Just for money? If she loses this it's not good for her reputation. Also the innocence project is behind this; pretty sure they don't want to be involved in getting a real killer out, they have a name to keep up. Very curious about how this is going to play out and if new evidence will come up.

[iacas]

5 hours ago, Silent said:

Besides wether one thinks Avery and Dassey are guilty, I think what the docu shows you is that the current system has big flaws. Think about it for the moment; the list above is just from one lawyer, and only the (big) cases she won. Imagine how many more there probably are (she's by far not the only lawyer), and even more how many more cases like this there are without anyone bothering or knowing about it.

I don't really agree with your premise.

It's not like you can take that list and multiply it by the number of lawyers. She specializes in this, and only takes cases like this, and she also only takes cases she thinks she can win. She doesn't just take every convicted felon and try to get them out.

Seen that way, it's a really small list.

The system is set up in a way where mistakes are going to be made. All we have to ask is whether the mistakes sort of balance out. And I don't mean 1:1. We need to make it tough enough to convict people that innocent people are not convicted too readily, while making it easy enough to convict people that guilty people are not acquitted too readily.

5 hours ago, Silent said:

We all know a person should only be convicted if quilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

And in all of those cases that was sufficient.

It's like being virtually certain in golf. It doesn't guarantee that your ball is in the hazard. Maybe some weird thing occurred that almost never happens - it hit a rock just beneath the surface and bounced out - so you saw a splash but your ball was NOT in the hazard.

5 hours ago, Silent said:

Anyway, that discussion is for another time since it might be slightly offtopic.

It is, yeah.

If Avery is eventually exonerated, as he was the first time around, that doesn't mean there was a failure of the justice system. It's full of people doing the best they can. The jurors made a decision and felt they were beyond reasonable doubt. Both times.

If lightning strikes twice, that doesn't mean those jurors were wrong to convict, just as you would be well within your rights to be virtually certain your ball had gone in the water hazard.

[Silent]

37 minutes ago, iacas said:

I don't really agree with your premise.

It's not like you can take that list and multiply it by the number of lawyers. She specializes in this, and only takes cases like this, and she also only takes cases she thinks she can win. She doesn't just take every convicted felon and try to get them out.

Seen that way, it's a really small list.

I agree with you for the most since I never said you can simply multiply it by the number of lawyers. Offcourse you can't. But it's a fact she's not the only lawyer who specialized in this, that there are plenty of more lawyers of which you can also make a similar list (maybe smaller, since she seems to be succesful) ánd she probably only takes bigger cases. I think it's a fair estimation to argue that there are more cases like this, especially since these are only the ones we know of and therefor the statement that there are many more people in prison for something they didn't do is not a big stredge. It's shocking to be honest.

The bold part is interesting for me... why did she take Avery's case? It's interesting really, she thinks she has a shot? She really believes he's set up?

44 minutes ago, iacas said:

The system is set up in a way where mistakes are going to be made. All we have to ask is whether the mistakes sort of balance out. And I don't mean 1:1. We need to make it tough enough to convict people that innocent people are not convicted too readily, while making it easy enough to convict people that guilty people are not acquitted too readily.

Exactly, but the question is in what way. Is 1:20 acceptable? Ofcourse it can never be 0, and I have no idea what the exact number is right now and even if I do, that number doesn't tell me that much since a lot of murder cases are indeed crystal clear; it's about the ones where there's doubt and wether or not the suspect has a fair chance. That people went to prison for decades and even ended up on deathrow for something they didn't do.... I'm flabbergasted about how that's possible, and how some people seem to play it down.

50 minutes ago, iacas said:

And in all of those cases that was sufficient.

I don't necessarily agree with you. The jury found it sufficient, difference in nuance. To keep it on topic: I said before that I think Avery is guilty, but I have big doubts if it's proven beyond reasonable doubt. In my opinion Avery and Dassey never had a shot of a fair trial, partly because of all the press conferences, the way they were helt, and the fact the jury was from the same town (or closeby). I believe that in the 'right' circumstances a jury increases the chances of a wrongful conviction compared to a non-jury system (depending on a lot of other things as well obviously)

 

56 minutes ago, iacas said:

If Avery is eventually exonerated, as he was the first time around, that doesn't mean there was a failure of the justice system. It's full of people doing the best they can. The jurors made a decision and felt they were beyond reasonable doubt. Both times.

If lightning strikes twice, that doesn't mean those jurors were wrong to convict, just as you would be well within your rights to be virtually certain your ball had gone in the water hazard.

Maybe not a failure of individual people part of the system by default, but I would always consider a wrongful conviction as a failure of the system. Apparently the system couldn't protect someone who needed it the most. Let alone 2 wrongful convictions (in this example, and hypothetically offc.). Especially the first case; there simply was no hard evidence, and he had several alibi's from different people. Offcourse it was a big failure of the system ánd of people involved he got convicted. That the jury said there was no reasonable doubt is shocking to say the least; there was plenty.

 

I tried not to be too much off topic; partly this is what the documentary wants you discuss. On one hand the individual cases regarding Avery, on the other hand the system as a whole. That the request for a new trial from Dassey is handled by the same lawyer as from his initial trial is just... not good. It's like asking Coca Cola to investigate if Coca Cola is a good brand. I just don't know what to think of all this. Part of me hopes they get exonerated (by new evidence would be even more cool), but another part of me hopes they did it. I'm also curious what exactly happend in the chambers after that one juror was dismissed. he stated that at the point he left, most jurors where at 'not guilty'. Is such a shift common, is it remarkable/strange?

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Silent said:

I agree with you for the most since I never said you can simply multiply it by the number of lawyers. Offcourse you can't. But it's a fact she's not the only lawyer who specialized in this, that there are plenty of more lawyers of which you can also make a similar list (maybe smaller, since she seems to be succesful) ánd she probably only takes bigger cases. I think it's a fair estimation to argue that there are more cases like this, especially since these are only the ones we know of and therefor the statement that there are many more people in prison for something they didn't do is not a big stredge. It's shocking to be honest.

I don't think a small list - or a small set of small lists - can be used to say our entire system is screwed up.

1 hour ago, Silent said:

Exactly, but the question is in what way. Is 1:20 acceptable? Ofcourse it can never be 0, and I have no idea what the exact number is right now and even if I do, that number doesn't tell me that much since a lot of murder cases are indeed crystal clear; it's about the ones where there's doubt and wether or not the suspect has a fair chance. That people went to prison for decades and even ended up on deathrow for something they didn't do.... I'm flabbergasted about how that's possible, and how some people seem to play it down.

What's to be flabbergasted about? People on the jury felt they were beyond reasonable doubt. They convicted.

Since they can't know whether someone did something, they've set the bar where it's set - at "reasonable doubt." How's the justice system in your country? I doubt it's perfect.

 

1 hour ago, Silent said:

I don't necessarily agree with you. The jury found it sufficient, difference in nuance. To keep it on topic: I said before that I think Avery is guilty, but I have big doubts if it's proven beyond reasonable doubt. In my opinion Avery and Dassey never had a shot of a fair trial, partly because of all the press conferences, the way they were helt, and the fact the jury was from the same town (or closeby). I believe that in the 'right' circumstances a jury increases the chances of a wrongful conviction compared to a non-jury system (depending on a lot of other things as well obviously)

The jury found that the evidence against him overcame reasonable doubt. That's all I'm saying. If you doubt it's proven beyond reasonable doubt, well, you're saying the jurors screwed up. Or have a different definition of it than you do. I disagree, too, that they never had a fair chance at trial. You can't truck a jury in from somewhere else every time someone murders someone. Murder trials get press coverage, particularly in little podunk towns where it doesn't happen often.

1 hour ago, Silent said:

Maybe not a failure of individual people part of the system by default, but I would always consider a wrongful conviction as a failure of the system.

I don't, because it's always going to happen. The best you can do is to make it reasonably easy to convict guilty people while making it reasonably difficult to convict innocent people. If you can solve that problem to a much higher degree of certainty, why, I imagine you'll be lauded as one of the greatest legal minds in history.

1 hour ago, Silent said:

Apparently the system couldn't protect someone who needed it the most. Let alone 2 wrongful convictions (in this example, and hypothetically offc.).

Yes, by all means, let's continue to blow this out of proportion.

The state doesn't want to wrongly convict people either, but they also don't want to let guilty people go free because the burden of proof is SO high almost nobody ever meets it.

1 hour ago, Silent said:

I tried not to be too much off topic; partly this is what the documentary wants you discuss. On one hand the individual cases regarding Avery, on the other hand the system as a whole. That the request for a new trial from Dassey is handled by the same lawyer as from his initial trial is just... not good. It's like asking Coca Cola to investigate if Coca Cola is a good brand. I just don't know what to think of all this. Part of me hopes they get exonerated (by new evidence would be even more cool), but another part of me hopes they did it. I'm also curious what exactly happend in the chambers after that one juror was dismissed. he stated that at the point he left, most jurors where at 'not guilty'. Is such a shift common, is it remarkable/strange?

Fairly common from what I've heard. They're basing the initial assessment on the closing arguments, and the defense goes second. It was the last thing they heard.

Then they start to talk about the evidence, and the other details, and weigh everything.

Again, if you can come up with a better way to punish more guilty people and let go more innocent people, by all means, have at it. I'm not gonna be all doom and gloom about our current legal system, though, as it seems to be one of the best in the world.

[Silent]

44 minutes ago, iacas said:

I don't think a small list - or a small set of small lists - can be used to say our entire system is screwed up.

I don't think I did that, I said it has flaws. The question is does it have more flaws than other systems or not.

 

46 minutes ago, iacas said:

What's to be flabbergasted about? People on the jury felt they were beyond reasonable doubt. They convicted.

Since they can't know whether someone did something, they've set the bar where it's set - at "reasonable doubt." How's the justice system in your country? I doubt it's perfect.

People are senteced to death or to life in prison, later to be discovered 'oops, sorry... we were totally wrong'. Ofcourse I'm flabbergasted about that.

Obviously the justice system in my country is not perfect as well. I even gave you an example of a wrongful conviction here, were one of the basis was a false convession of the once who got convicted (to show you that people do give false convession, even it it means convessing a murder you did not do). The big difference with the justice system you have is the fact we don't have a jury. In criminal cases we have 3 judges. That doesn't mean by deafult the system is better (I never did make such a claim), but I have to admit I don't like the jury system that much (where other might not like the fact your faith is in the hand of just 3 judges like by us)

 

52 minutes ago, iacas said:

The jury found that the evidence against him overcame reasonable doubt. That's all I'm saying. If you doubt it's proven beyond reasonable doubt, well, you're saying the jurors screwed up. Or have a different definition of it than you do. I disagree, too, that they never had a fair chance at trial. You can't truck a jury in from somewhere else every time someone murders someone. Murder trials get press coverage, particularly in little podunk towns where it doesn't happen often.

I guess in this case I'm saying that yes. No hard evidence, numerous of alibi's from different people.... well yes, maybe we do have a different definition of reasonable doubt. If this is not reasonable doubt, I wonder what is. It's not the jury's job to pick the most likely scenario (in Avery's case: the most likely scenario is that he did it). So yes, I think they screwed up in the first case, and I think they did so big time.

I agree with you that a wrongful conviction doesn't automatically mean the jury (or other people) screwed up, but the opposite is also not true; people can screw up, judges or jury can too.

56 minutes ago, iacas said:

Yes, by all means, let's continue to blow this out of proportion.

The state doesn't want to wrongly convict people either, but they also don't want to let guilty people go free because the burden of proof is SO high almost nobody ever meets it.

Huh? I was reacting to your statement that if Avery got exonerated, it doesn't automitaccly mean the system screwed up. I agree it doesn't mean that automatically, but come on... if he gets exoneraterd, he was send to prison twice for something he didn't do, and by now served 30 years because of that. Ofcourse something went wrong down that road, probably more than one thing and probably people made mistakes. The list from Zellner showed that in numerous cases people got millions because of the mistakes that were made. Because of wrongdoing from either state or justice. Hell, Avery was going down that road but needed to settle for a low amount because he needed the money.

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Fairly common from what I've heard. They're basing the initial assessment on the closing arguments, and the defense goes second. It was the last thing they heard.

Then they start to talk about the evidence, and the other details, and weigh everything.

Again, if you can come up with a better way to punish more guilty people and let go more innocent people, by all means, have at it. I'm not gonna be all doom and gloom about our current legal system, though, as it seems to be one of the best in the world.

Thanks, good to know. In the documentary they presented it as something highly unusual, but since they were quite biased I was in doubt about that. 

It's not my intention to 'come up with a better system', we're all here not experts I can imagine. But it's interesting to discuss the flaws, if they are there in the first place, or if there are too many or not. I would rather let 50 guilty people walk out because of technacalities, the sentece 1 innocent man to prison. But I do agree that in every system there is a possibility that it happens, ofcourse. About the best in the world I don't know... I read a lot about exonerations (more than in Europe), so that means wrongful convictions. On the other hand you can also argue that the system corrects itself; not reading about wrongful convictions doesn't mean they didn't happen, it just means they weren't turn around. Difficult but interesting subject though.

 

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, Silent said:

People are senteced to death or to life in prison, later to be discovered 'oops, sorry... we were totally wrong'. Ofcourse I'm flabbergasted about that.

You shouldn't be, and I think it's causing you to over-react.

2 minutes ago, Silent said:

I guess in this case I'm saying that yes. No hard evidence, numerous of alibi's from different people.... well yes, maybe we do have a different definition of reasonable doubt. If this is not reasonable doubt, I wonder what is. It's not the jury's job to pick the most likely scenario (in Avery's case: the most likely scenario is that he did it). So yes, I think they screwed up in the first case, and I think they did so big time.

You only really know what you were told about the original case by the same film that did just about everything it could to paint Avery's side.

2 minutes ago, Silent said:

Huh? I was reacting to your statement that if Avery got exonerated, it doesn't automitaccly mean the system screwed up. I agree it doesn't mean that automatically, but come on... if he gets exoneraterd, he was send to prison twice for something he didn't do, and by now served 30 years because of that. Ofcourse something went wrong down that road, probably more than one thing and probably people made mistakes.

No they didn't. I disagree with you here.

If you hit a ball toward a water hazard, see a splash, and unbeknownst to you the ball hit a rock beneath the surface and landed in the rough beyond the hazard, you'd be well within your rights to play the ball as if you were virtually certain it was in the hazard.

That you discovered five holes later when you loop back toward that hazard that the ball was out of the hazard does not make your actions earlier "wrong."

2 minutes ago, Silent said:

It's not my intention to 'come up with a better system', we're all here not experts I can imagine. But it's interesting to discuss the flaws, if they are there in the first place, or if there are too many or not. I would rather let 50 guilty people walk out because of technacalities, the sentece 1 innocent man to prison.

For all you know we're at 1:100. And for many others, 1:50 is too high.

[Silent]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

No they didn't. I disagree with you here.

If you hit a ball toward a water hazard, see a splash, and unbeknownst to you the ball hit a rock beneath the surface and landed in the rough beyond the hazard, you'd be well within your rights to play the ball as if you were virtually certain it was in the hazard.

That you discovered five holes later when you loop back toward that hazard that the ball was out of the hazard does not make your actions earlier "wrong."

And if three people tell you they saw the ball landing in the rough, but you still decide it went in the water it does make your actions "wrong".

Anyway, let's agree to disagree. Curious what this case brings forward, and what else may or may not come up along the road. Either way it has my full attention

[iacas]

21 minutes ago, Silent said:

And if three people tell you they saw the ball landing in the rough, but you still decide it went in the water it does make your actions "wrong".

Of course you then look in the rough! If people tell you it bounced into the rough, you don't have virtual certainty.

If the jury has reasonable doubt, it too doesn't have virtual certainty, and doesn't convict.

That's not the same thing at all!

The people weren't wrong when they convict because they surpassed reasonable doubt just as you aren't wrong if you are virtually certain.

This case has almost none of my attention.  Only what's discussed here.

[Silent]

9 hours ago, iacas said:

Of course you then look in the rough! If people tell you it bounced into the rough, you don't have virtual certainty.

 

Exactly. So when numerous people tell you Avery was somewhere else in the time frame of the rape ('we saw the ball in the rough'), you are going to look for other suspects instead of pursuing the theory its in the water anyway.

You can't honestly believe that police and jury are by definition flawless, and a wrongful conviction can never be a result of mistakes being made by either one of the parties, right? I think in this wrongful conviction arguments can be made that that was the case here.

 

 

 

[iacas]

13 hours ago, Silent said:

Exactly. So when numerous people tell you Avery was somewhere else in the time frame of the rape ('we saw the ball in the rough'), you are going to look for other suspects instead of pursuing the theory its in the water anyway.

Clearly they felt that there was sufficient contrary evidence to overcome reasonable doubt.

My point was that if you are virtually certain (i.e. "beyond reasonable doubt") you aren't later "wrong" if new evidence comes to surface (the guy confesses, you find your ball in the rough playing a later hole).

13 hours ago, Silent said:

You can't honestly believe that police and jury are by definition flawless

That's putting words in my mouth. No, I don't.

13 hours ago, Silent said:

You can't honestly believe that police and jury are by definition flawless, and a wrongful conviction can never be a result of mistakes being made by either one of the parties, right? I think in this wrongful conviction arguments can be made that that was the case here.

The jurors were not "wrong" to convict because later evidence arises.

That's the only point I've been making in all of this. They didn't make a "mistake." They did what they could with the information they had.

[Silent]

20 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

That's putting words in my mouth.

No it's not, and that is not a fair statement; I deliberatly asked it as a question, and ended the sentence wit a question mark. Exactly for the reason not to put words in your mouth but ask you for it, since it was not clear for me.

Anyway, I don't think we're going to agree on this. That's fine. In my opinion there will pretty much always reasonable doubt if someone is completely innocent. Exemptions aside, direct evidence is simply not present since the person is innocent. Maybe we have a different opinion about when it is reasonable doubt, also possible.

Lets wrap this discussion up for now (unless you want to add something ) until Zellner is making some new waves which might add something to the topic.

 

 

 

[iacas]

37 minutes ago, Silent said:

No it's not, and that is not a fair statement

I disagree. Regardless of how you end the sentence it implies that my words to that point imply that I would answer affirmatively.

37 minutes ago, Silent said:

Anyway, I don't think we're going to agree on this. That's fine. In my opinion there will pretty much always reasonable doubt if someone is completely innocent.

Then you'd never convict anyone. And your definition of "reasonable doubt" must be ridiculously high.

37 minutes ago, Silent said:

Maybe we have a different opinion about when it is reasonable doubt, also possible.

You weren't on that original trial. Neither was I. We have no idea whether we'd have ruled it beyond reasonable doubt.

I don't think you'd be "wrong" to play your ball as if it went into the water hazard, just as I don't think the jury was "wrong" when later evidence supports exoneration.

[Silent]

If I'm not mistaken this week there will be a hearing for Avery. In the meantime his current lawyer continues to drop bomb regarding her defence strategy (maybe in a attempt to play the media?).

 

Also Halbach's death certificate raises some questions whether or not it was pushed trough in order to make a quick arrest.

Quote

- The original cause of death was indicated as "Undetermined" but was then crossed out.

- The box indicating an autopsy had been carried out was ticked even though the date and time on the form say it was filled in before Halbach's remains were found.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/03/06/making-a-murderer-steven-avery-teresa-halbech-death-record_n_9394068.html

Quote

Making a Murderer subject Steven Avery was named a 'murder suspect' just 154 minutes after Teresa Halbach was reported missing.

Explosive evidence points to claims that police were deliberately targeting Avery in a bid to set him up - despite them having no body and no evidence to prove she had been even been killed.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/making-murderers-steven-avery-named-7491877

[Jeremie Boop]

6 hours ago, Silent said:

If I'm not mistaken this week there will be a hearing for Avery. In the meantime his current lawyer continues to drop bomb regarding her defence strategy (maybe in a attempt to play the media?).

 

Also Halbach's death certificate raises some questions whether or not it was pushed trough in order to make a quick arrest.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/03/06/making-a-murderer-steven-avery-teresa-halbech-death-record_n_9394068.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/making-murderers-steven-avery-named-7491877

Just a quick note on the Cell tower thing, wouldn't that be easy to do. Leave his phone at home and take hers and leave the property? I mean, that's not exactly rocket science.

[Silent]

26 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

Just a quick note on the Cell tower thing, wouldn't that be easy to do. Leave his phone at home and take hers and leave the property? I mean, that's not exactly rocket science.

Absolutely. Based on the tweets I absolutely disagree Zellner her statement that it 'provides an airtide alibi'. It doesn't, it just 'proves' that her phone left the house while his phone didn't, that's it. On the other hand, it might prove that the timeline as argued by the DA is off or raises some doubt about it. A lot of 'proof' Zellner is talking about still doesn't clear Avery as killer. However that's not necessary, as long as there's enough (reasonable) doubt. She's trying to build up a truckload of doubt on several things.

Very curious what she means by the second tweet though, (potential) scientific detection of planting evidence. That would be a shocker...

[iacas]

On February 15, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Silent said:

Steven Avery’s lawyer will bring a new appeal to the court in 30 days, and claims she will present new forensic evidence that proves Avery’s innocence.

So… nothing happening here?

[Silent]

4 hours ago, iacas said:

So… nothing happening here?

Not that I know of. Have been silent (hah!) here since I didn't follow the case that closely last couple of weeks. When I look for some information now I see one more interesting tweet from Zellner (about someone giving up a false name in order to enter Avery property) and that's about it. Looks like the waves have been made and they are now focussing on the next stepts. I also find this from 2 days ago:

Quote

Steven Avery's legal team claim that he will be exonerated of the murder of Teresa Halbach within months and without a trial.

That's according to Curtis Busse, the man behind the Steven Avery Project, which works with the Avery family to deliver information to the public.
"We're not even looking for a new trial. We're actually looking for an exoneration," Busse said in a recent interview with radio station WIBX.
His lawyer, Kathleen Zellner, has been reexamining all the evidence in the case prior to a new appeal to free Avery who has been incarcerated since 2007 when he was convicted of Halbach's murder.
"Zellner's very confident, and Steven is also very confident that it's not gonna take that much time. And we're talking months here," said Busse.

http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/television/tv-news/making-a-murderer-steven-avery-could-be-exonerated-soon-and-without-trial-34558733.html

 

I realise anybody can say anything at this point, articles will be read so how much can be true and what to believe and what not. On the other hand: Zellner is a lawyer, famous for exonorating people and her list of exonorations is quite impressive. Chicago Lawyer Magazine's Person of the year... I can't imagine she will publicaly make waves, seeking media attention etc. just to end with... not even an appeal. Looking at her reputation and all that would be quite surprising.

[iacas]

10 hours ago, Silent said:

I realise anybody can say anything at this point, articles will be read so how much can be true and what to believe and what not. On the other hand: Zellner is a lawyer, famous for exonorating people and her list of exonorations is quite impressive. Chicago Lawyer Magazine's Person of the year... I can't imagine she will publicaly make waves, seeking media attention etc. just to end with... not even an appeal. Looking at her reputation and all that would be quite surprising.

She said within a month, and yet, nothing's happened. That's all I was pointing out.

She may have a long list, but how many has she failed to exonerate?