I think the complete lack of evidence should be enough.

If memory serves every piece of physical evidence "found" on Avery's property was capable of being brought to the site, they keys, the bullet fragment, the car, even the body (including parts in a barrel).There was nothing to definitely identify a murder scene as being there either as per Dassey's description of events or as speculated by the prosecution. Had she been killed there, in either manner, there ought to have been evidence far harder to conceal than the evidence but none was found. I'm still at a loss as to how that doesn't stack up to reasonable doubt unless you purposefully refuse to entertain that idea.
Guess we wait. I'm totally confused as to how this can play out now. Different state laws, appeal systems etc.

Bottom line is that he's already been convicted and used up his appeals. At this point, it is going to take something extraordinary to change that.

Teague wrote:I think the complete lack of evidence should be enough.

I'm not sure what show you watched because there was a shit ton of evidence against Avery. Or maybe you are thinking about his rape conviction where there actually was a lack of evidence. But in his murder trial there was a plenty of evidence. So much so that it's hard to imagine how anybody could have beat such a case against them without raising the specter of the evidence being planted. This would have been an utterly boring show if his defense was that there wasn't enough evidence to prove his guilt.

purplerat wrote:Bottom line is that he's already been convicted and used up his appeals. At this point, it is going to take something extraordinary to change that.

Isn't it extraordinary that he "used up" his appeals - so everyone reading the case all thought the same thing, that circumstantial evidence was fine and didn't even look to question the difference in the 2 cases of Dassy/Avery.

purplerat wrote:

Teague wrote:I think the complete lack of evidence should be enough.

I'm not sure what show you watched because there was a shit ton of evidence against Avery. Or maybe you are thinking about his rape conviction where there actually was a lack of evidence. But in his murder trial there was a plenty of evidence. So much so that it's hard to imagine how anybody could have beat such a case against them without raising the specter of the evidence being planted. This would have been an utterly boring show if his defense was that there wasn't enough evidence to prove his guilt.

I think you're confusing circumstantial evidence as actual evidence and ignoring planted evidence such as the keys and the entire lack of DNA evidence.

Teague wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Teague wrote:I think the complete lack of evidence should be enough.

I'm not sure what show you watched because there was a shit ton of evidence against Avery. Or maybe you are thinking about his rape conviction where there actually was a lack of evidence. But in his murder trial there was a plenty of evidence. So much so that it's hard to imagine how anybody could have beat such a case against them without raising the specter of the evidence being planted. This would have been an utterly boring show if his defense was that there wasn't enough evidence to prove his guilt.

I think you're confusing circumstantial evidence as actual evidence and ignoring planted evidence such as the keys and the entire lack of DNA evidence.

First off, circumstantial evidence is still evidence. Plenty of cases are decided entirely on circumstantial evidence and I'd be willing to bet that is all this Zellner has towards "proving" somebody else did it.

Secondly, there was plenty of physical evidence. You might think it's planted but that doesn't mean it wasn't there for the jury to consider.

Thirdly there was DNA evidence. Again, you and Avery's defense might want to believe it was planted or tampered with but the fact is that there was DNA evidence presented at the trial and later held up on appeal. This is an undeniable fact.

Seriously, have you completely forgotten what this show was about or are you thinking of some other case?

Teague wrote:

purplerat wrote:Bottom line is that he's already been convicted and used up his appeals. At this point, it is going to take something extraordinary to change that.

Isn't it extraordinary that he "used up" his appeals - so everyone reading the case all thought the same thing, that circumstantial evidence was fine and didn't even look to question the difference in the 2 cases of Dassy/Avery.

No, it's not extraordinary. Why would it be?

Whatever you think of the US criminal justice system (and I certainly have my complaints) his path through it is completely ordinary which is exactly why he still sits behind bars. Somebody making a slick TV show about it notwithstanding.

***ETA***
The part of his story about his false rape conviction and subsequent release was out of the ordinary so that does qualify but has little to no implication on his murder conviction and current attempt to free himself.

Teague wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Teague wrote:

purplerat wrote:
Why not? Maybe it makes it less likely but what precludes her from having left Avery's then later ending up back there and being killed then? It's not even that hard to explain. I believe there was even a call from Avery to her phone after she supposedly would have left which could easily explain him "luring" her back to his place.

Not that I necessarily think that's what happened, but I don't think any evidence that she was away from his property for a short period of time before she was supposedly killed changes all that much. I mean if the jury believed the rest of the prosecution's case why not that as well?

It would put the time of death later for one thing. I don't remember the time lines and if other people were around after the time they said she was killed which might be significant.

It also gives another line of inquiry. If they know her next stop, they can question her next stop.

I don't recall the prosecution ever giving anything close to an exact time of death. I don't know how they could have given the evidence they had.

Now if there was strong evidence that Halbach was alive somewhere else a day or two after she left Avery's that would be pretty compelling towards reopening the case. Or if there is a material witness who can say they saw or spoke to her sometime after she left Avery then that would certainly be interesting. But if it's merely circumstantial evidence that she may have left Avery's house after initially meeting with him within a time frame of a few hours or so then I don't see what that really changes.

Given how long this thing has been dragging out I'd put my money on the latter.

Well they had a timeline because people testified seeing them at specific times iirc. So yes, that exactly gives a window for the time of death.

It would appear from the document produced by Zellner that Teresa's violent and abusive ex-lover is the most likely killer.

Hillegas has some very suggestive gaps in his visibility at critical times when the crime was most likely committed. He initially lied to police about his relationship to the victim. He also moved into the dead woman's home and controlled the flow of 'evidence' to the police. Hillegas also coordinated the civilian 'searches' for Teresa - including Pam Sturm's amazing finding of the RAV4 in a matter of minutes among 4000 vehicles in the salvage yard.

It appears the 'hood latch DNA' used by the prosecution to help convict Steven comes from a swab that was never in contact with the hood latch - most likely a swab from a physical exam police claimed was disposed of.

It turns out the alleged 'murder bullet' found in Steven's garage was actually fired at a piece of wood - zero evidence it was ever in contact with human bone as alleged by the prosecution.

The 'magic key' that mysteriously appeared in Steven's after seven searches has far more of his (and not Teresa's) DNA on it than could be expected from handling it, by an order of magnitude. The DNA is more likely to have come from one of Steven's toothbrushes that turned up missing.

All in all it is a very interesting document and I'm interested to see whether the result will be a dismissal of charges, a new trial, or something else.

proudfootz wrote:This link shows a couple of hundred pages:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... Relief.pdf

I like this Zellner woman. She has produced a quite comprehensive dismantling of the case and a fab character assassination of Kratz.

Just her intro is excellent reading

page 20
Mr.Kratz' s theory of Ms. Halbach' s murder is one of the most preposterous tales ever spun in an American courtroom. If Mr. Kratz's theory were true, Mr. Avery is a true " idiot-savant." Mr. Kratz' s first tale was as follows: Mr. Avery, the idiot, selects, as his victim, the only female with whom he had an appointment on the day of her murder. Mr. Avery, the idiot, selects his own bedroom for the commission of an incredibly bloody crime. Mr. Avery, the idiot, handcuffs Ms. Halbach to his bed, sexually assaults her, slashes her throat, and stabs her stomach. He carries her lifeless bloody body to the garage, placing her in and taking her out of the back of her RA V-4, puts her on a creeper, and rolls her to his burn pit where he tosses her body into a bonfire. However, despite leaving a mountain of incriminating evidence, Mr. Avery, the savant, takes over and is able to level the mountain and remove all forensic traces of Ms. Halbach in his trailer and garage in a feat that is comparable to defying the laws of gravity and forensic science......continues through the entire allegations in same vein

Just finished reading the entire thing. If it doesn't lead to at the least a retrial and at best some prosecutions for serious misconducts and false imprisonment, justice truly is dead.

monkeyboy wrote:

proudfootz wrote:This link shows a couple of hundred pages:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... Relief.pdf

I like this Zellner woman. She has produced a quite comprehensive dismantling of the case and a fab character assassination of Kratz.

Just her intro is excellent reading

page 20
Mr.Kratz' s theory of Ms. Halbach' s murder is one of the most preposterous tales ever spun in an American courtroom. If Mr. Kratz's theory were true, Mr. Avery is a true " idiot-savant." Mr. Kratz' s first tale was as follows: Mr. Avery, the idiot, selects, as his victim, the only female with whom he had an appointment on the day of her murder. Mr. Avery, the idiot, selects his own bedroom for the commission of an incredibly bloody crime. Mr. Avery, the idiot, handcuffs Ms. Halbach to his bed, sexually assaults her, slashes her throat, and stabs her stomach. He carries her lifeless bloody body to the garage, placing her in and taking her out of the back of her RA V-4, puts her on a creeper, and rolls her to his burn pit where he tosses her body into a bonfire. However, despite leaving a mountain of incriminating evidence, Mr. Avery, the savant, takes over and is able to level the mountain and remove all forensic traces of Ms. Halbach in his trailer and garage in a feat that is comparable to defying the laws of gravity and forensic science......continues through the entire allegations in same vein

Just finished reading the entire thing. If it doesn't lead to at the least a retrial and at best some prosecutions for serious misconducts and false imprisonment, justice truly is dead.

All of the concerns of this case and others aside I'm actually quite happy to live within a justice system which is not swayed simply because somebody can write eloquently or make a trendy show about a case. What new information has Zellner provided - and importantly substantiated - that would justify overturning any previous decisions?

I suppose the assumption here is that, as she is petitioning the court, she has evidence to back this up. Time will tell

purplerat wrote:

Seriously, have you completely forgotten what this show was about or are you thinking of some other case?

No, have you - see prodfoots post above. What evidence do you think there was then?

purplerat wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:

proudfootz wrote:This link shows a couple of hundred pages:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... Relief.pdf

I like this Zellner woman. She has produced a quite comprehensive dismantling of the case and a fab character assassination of Kratz.

Just her intro is excellent reading

page 20
Mr.Kratz' s theory of Ms. Halbach' s murder is one of the most preposterous tales ever spun in an American courtroom. If Mr. Kratz's theory were true, Mr. Avery is a true " idiot-savant." Mr. Kratz' s first tale was as follows: Mr. Avery, the idiot, selects, as his victim, the only female with whom he had an appointment on the day of her murder. Mr. Avery, the idiot, selects his own bedroom for the commission of an incredibly bloody crime. Mr. Avery, the idiot, handcuffs Ms. Halbach to his bed, sexually assaults her, slashes her throat, and stabs her stomach. He carries her lifeless bloody body to the garage, placing her in and taking her out of the back of her RA V-4, puts her on a creeper, and rolls her to his burn pit where he tosses her body into a bonfire. However, despite leaving a mountain of incriminating evidence, Mr. Avery, the savant, takes over and is able to level the mountain and remove all forensic traces of Ms. Halbach in his trailer and garage in a feat that is comparable to defying the laws of gravity and forensic science......continues through the entire allegations in same vein

Just finished reading the entire thing. If it doesn't lead to at the least a retrial and at best some prosecutions for serious misconducts and false imprisonment, justice truly is dead.

All of the concerns of this case and others aside I'm actually quite happy to live within a justice system which is not swayed simply because somebody can write eloquently or make a trendy show about a case. What new information has Zellner provided - and importantly substantiated - that would justify overturning any previous decisions?

You're against logic then?

Teague wrote:

purplerat wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:

proudfootz wrote:This link shows a couple of hundred pages:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... Relief.pdf

I like this Zellner woman. She has produced a quite comprehensive dismantling of the case and a fab character assassination of Kratz.

Just her intro is excellent reading

page 20
Mr.Kratz' s theory of Ms. Halbach' s murder is one of the most preposterous tales ever spun in an American courtroom. If Mr. Kratz's theory were true, Mr. Avery is a true " idiot-savant." Mr. Kratz' s first tale was as follows: Mr. Avery, the idiot, selects, as his victim, the only female with whom he had an appointment on the day of her murder. Mr. Avery, the idiot, selects his own bedroom for the commission of an incredibly bloody crime. Mr. Avery, the idiot, handcuffs Ms. Halbach to his bed, sexually assaults her, slashes her throat, and stabs her stomach. He carries her lifeless bloody body to the garage, placing her in and taking her out of the back of her RA V-4, puts her on a creeper, and rolls her to his burn pit where he tosses her body into a bonfire. However, despite leaving a mountain of incriminating evidence, Mr. Avery, the savant, takes over and is able to level the mountain and remove all forensic traces of Ms. Halbach in his trailer and garage in a feat that is comparable to defying the laws of gravity and forensic science......continues through the entire allegations in same vein

Just finished reading the entire thing. If it doesn't lead to at the least a retrial and at best some prosecutions for serious misconducts and false imprisonment, justice truly is dead.

All of the concerns of this case and others aside I'm actually quite happy to live within a justice system which is not swayed simply because somebody can write eloquently or make a trendy show about a case. What new information has Zellner provided - and importantly substantiated - that would justify overturning any previous decisions?

You're against logic then?

While I'm not personally against logic it is worth pointing out (again I believe) that there is no legal requirement of a case or conviction being logically sound. The prosecution can give logically inconsistent and even contradicting theories or evidence and still secure a conviction. Simply put " 'cause logic..." is not a legal defense in the US.

Teague wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Seriously, have you completely forgotten what this show was about or are you thinking of some other case?

No, have you - see prodfoots post above. What evidence do you think there was then?

If there is literally no evidence as you seem to think then Avery should be walking free shortly. The show I watched included plenty of physical evidence against Steve Avery. His conviction was so dependent upon it that if Zellner requested the evidence and suddenly it no longer exists (as you seem to suggest) that itself would seem to be solid grounds to have his conviction dismissed.

felltoearth wrote:I suppose the assumption here is that, as she is petitioning the court, she has evidence to back this up. Time will tell

Indeed, if nothing else time does seem to be in abundance here. I'm sure as the build up to season 2 begins more of this will trickle out.

purplerat wrote:

Teague wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Seriously, have you completely forgotten what this show was about or are you thinking of some other case?

No, have you - see prodfoots post above. What evidence do you think there was then?

If there is literally no evidence as you seem to think then Avery should be walking free shortly. The show I watched included plenty of physical evidence against Steve Avery. His conviction was so dependent upon it that if Zellner requested the evidence and suddenly it no longer exists (as you seem to suggest) that itself would seem to be solid grounds to have his conviction dismissed.

OK what evidence.

additional: I didn't suggest anything, it's what Zellnar is asserting.

Teague wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Teague wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Seriously, have you completely forgotten what this show was about or are you thinking of some other case?

No, have you - see prodfoots post above. What evidence do you think there was then?

If there is literally no evidence as you seem to think then Avery should be walking free shortly. The show I watched included plenty of physical evidence against Steve Avery. His conviction was so dependent upon it that if Zellner requested the evidence and suddenly it no longer exists (as you seem to suggest) that itself would seem to be solid grounds to have his conviction dismissed.

OK what evidence.

additional: I didn't suggest anything, it's what Zellnar is asserting.

There's a wonderful show which goes over quite a bit of the evidence against him. It's fairly easily accessible to both you and Zellner.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5189670/?ref_=nv_sr_1

purplerat wrote:

Teague wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Teague wrote:

No, have you - see prodfoots post above. What evidence do you think there was then?

If there is literally no evidence as you seem to think then Avery should be walking free shortly. The show I watched included plenty of physical evidence against Steve Avery. His conviction was so dependent upon it that if Zellner requested the evidence and suddenly it no longer exists (as you seem to suggest) that itself would seem to be solid grounds to have his conviction dismissed.

OK what evidence.

additional: I didn't suggest anything, it's what Zellnar is asserting.

There's a wonderful show which goes over quite a bit of the evidence against him. It's fairly easily accessible to both you and Zellner.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5189670/?ref_=nv_sr_1

I'm not watching a show, I'm asking you. You've told me I must have been watching a different show, I want you, as you obviously remember it so brilliantly, to give me some of the evidence against Avery. Right now you're obfuscating.