ACJL

Seems like Zellner's motion about the bones in the quarry has been denied. Apparently Zellner was misinterpreting (on purpose?) a Statute that was supposedly relevant. https://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetail.html?caseNo=2005CF000381&countyNo=36&index=0&mode=details

Much of Zellner's case seem to rely on misinterpretations of the original trial/police reports or leaving out evidence of the original trial/police reports though and she gets called out on that.

There are several "rebuttal" series out there that you might want to view. The most well known one is probably Dan O'Donnel's "Rebutting a Murderer" and there's another good one on Spotify by Real Crime Profile - a podcast by a former FBI Special Agent and a Analyst on People's Behaviour. On YouTube there's a rebuttal series called Making a Murderer: 33 times it deceived its viewers. It lists over 30 examples of where the documentary was deceptive. And another user uploaded a podcast by two forensic scientists, Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg, who share their thoughts on Zellner's case and don't agree with her very often. And...

I recently watched Undercover on Netflix. Pretty good series about an undercover operation to get to a drugs kingpin.

I just read "Perfectly Executed", a true crime book. It's about a case that was featured on a Netflix show called The Confession Tapes. The show depicts two guys, Sebastian Burns and Atif Rafay, and shows how they were confessing to the murder of Rafay's parents to a "Mr. Big" - the head of a criminal organization they had joined, not knowing that person was an undercover cop. The show raises questions about how the confession was elicited from the two teenagers - they were told by Mr. Big that the cops had finally found some DNA evidence that tied the boys to the crime, but Mr. Big said he had connections within law enforcement who could destroy the DNA evidence for them. In return he wanted their confession. So the boys confessed. After watching that show I briefly thought the boys were innocent. At the time of the murders they had an alibi: they were seen in a cinema and watched The Lion King there. They could also tell the cops how the movie ended and they said it was a boring movie. Now through this book I've learned that they had actually already seen that movie before so it meant nothing they could tell the cops how it ended and it wasn't evidence that they watched the movie until the end this time. There were no people who said they saw Burns and Atif at the end of the movie, still in the cinema. The cinema was only 5 minutes away from Rafay's home. Most notably he told of some details in his confession that only the killer would have an answer to. I'm getting carried away a little. But it was a very revealing book. Fun to read and I recommend it to anyone who has watched episodes 1 and 2 of The Confession Tapes.

There are plausible answers to all of those questions, but the documentary just doesn't share them with you. The dogs: the scent dogs actually tracked Halbach's scent to Steven Avery's own garage, showing much interest, and then continued to his trailer. A scent dog also alerted inside Avery's trailer. Zellner is just focussing on tracks away from the trailer and avoids mentioning all the tracks that incriminate Avery. for example the scent alert at Kuss rd. What she doesn't tell the viewer is that this trail began at Steven Avery's own trailer. she also doesn't mention the fact there is a scent trail from Steven Avery's trailer going all the way to where the RAV4 was found the amount of DNA on the hood latch: just look at how the test is executed. She has some well rested tidy clean guys touch the hood latch. Steven wasn't well rested, nor clean. He was unkempt and in a rush to get rid of evidence, probably perspirating. The difference between 0,09ng and 1,8ng isn't a lot according to Meakin and Jamieson, two renowned DNA scientists.