WayOfTheDodo wrote:

purplerat wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

purplerat wrote:
Nice quote-mining

How so? How does any of the rest of what you wrote change anything?

It's obvious from the context of both what I was responding to and the rest of my post that I was talking strictly about the court of law, not the court of public opinion and what the legal ramifications would or wouldn't be over Dassey's confession being thrown out.

What you responded with doesn't contradict what my post was about except when you take half a sentence out of context as you did.

But it was used in the court room. The whole PR thing was set up to influence the public, and thus the jurors.

ya, I'm not get into a debating over the meaning of in/out. If you really think Dassey's confession was used in court against Avery then good for you. You'll be able to make a boat load of money proving that and winning Steve Avery's freedom. Good luck with that.

Maybe if you'd bother to read what I wrote... Oh well.

I read what you wrote. It just had nothing to do with the comment I made or the line of discussion that you lifted my quote from. To summarize what I was discussing is that Dassey's confession was not used in any material way against Avery in his trial. Thus it being thrown out has no impact on Avery getting out. It's not as if the confession was a key piece of evidence used against Avery and it being ruled inadmissible would be grounds for him to get a new trial or be released as it was for Dassey.

What you are talking about is whether the confession being publicized outside of Avery's trial made have had an impact on the jury's decision. However, if it did whether the confession was valid or not is irrelevant. If the jury decided Avery's guilt based on evidence not presented in court that would be grounds for a mistrial. That would have been the case irrespective of whether Dassey's confession was valid or not and Avery's lawyers would have pursued that angle years ago if there was something to it. But again, that is something different from what I was speaking to.

The timeline is that police coerced statements from one of the defense witnesses to implicate himself and Steven in crimes against Teresa Halbach.

The Prosecutor Ken Kratz immediately goes on television to broadcast these unsubstantiated and involuntary statements.

The jury pool was tainted by the deliberate action of the prosecution.

The defense anticipated that the prosecution would use the so-called 'confession', but they didn't use it after all. I suppose they didn't have much confidence in it in the face of the legal help Steven had available to him.

But when it came to the trial of Brendan, he only had legal help along the lines of Len Kachinsky.

Since the so-called 'confession' is the only evidence against Brendan, its being thrown out should result in his release.

However, the legal system being what it is, that might not be the final outcome for Brendan.

If Brendan is released he may be able to help Steven, if anything comes of the push by Zellner to look at his case in light of new evidence.

Well, it appears Steven Avery's defense lawyer Kathleen Zellner has filed her petition for post-conviction relief:

Chicago lawyer Kathleen Zellner, who claims she will free Making a Murderer subject Steven Avery says Teresa Halbach’s ex-boyfriend is the one who killed her, she alleged in a multi-page petition for post-conviction relief filed Wednesday, June 7.

As of this report, the multi-page document has not been scanned into the court system’s electronic filing system, although Inquisitr has obtained 15 pages of the multi-page petition.

Zellner claims that evidence points to Halbach’s ex-boyfriend as the killer, and that Calument County District Attorney Ken Kratz, who prosecuted Avery and nephew Brendan Dassey knew Avery did not commit the crime. She alleges that the state destroyed evidence, namely an answering machine tape that proved Avery’s salvage yard was not Halbach’s last stop before she was killed.

http://www.inquisitr.com/4276828/making ... -breaking/

If she can show that Teresa was in fact murdered by someone else, there's a good chance Steven will be able to go free.

Does this accusation have any weight to it or is she just casting doubt on the conviction?

There is plenty of precedent for murderers installing themselves well within investigations as both a deflection of accusations and to monitor progress. The ex certainly had some degree of motive being an aggrieved party and seeing her developing a relationship with his friend. He also managed to place himself in a position to direct searchers to where her car could be found, allegedly piss poorly hidden and containing somewhat obvious DNA evidence by the same genius who was able to clean up all traces of her having been supposedly raped, had her throat cut and been stabbed in his trailer along with any blood trail between the trailer and the garage where she was allegedly shot at close quarters in the head, again with no blood spatter evidence in a cluttered garage. That's all grounds for doubt but what evidence is there that the ex might have done it other than speculation and he seems to be a reasonably likely candidate?

Thus far it seems we have access to only 15 pages out of a thousand in the petition.

https://www.scribd.com/document/3506627 ... ition-2017

This link shows a couple of hundred pages:

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

I thought it was her creepy-as-fuck brother who did it...

WayOfTheDodo wrote:I thought it was her creepy-as-fuck brother who did it...

That's certainly the angle they went with in the movie.

I think I called the BF. I'd like to see the evidence where the police destroyed evidence. If she went somewhere after then she can't have been killed where they claimed.

Think what was clear first time around was that once the finger started pointing at Avery, there was no further consideration of any other person being responsible. They totally failed to investigate the more obvious choices of someone close to her over the less likely scenario that a stranger had killed her as in most cases. Worst is they're prejudiced by their perception of Avery based on a wrongful conviction, that or their animosity over his perfectly reasonable law suit.
The whole thing still stinks baaad.

Teague wrote:I think I called the BF. I'd like to see the evidence where the police destroyed evidence. If she went somewhere after then she can't have been killed where they claimed.

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?

purplerat wrote:

Teague wrote:I think I called the BF. I'd like to see the evidence where the police destroyed evidence. If she went somewhere after then she can't have been killed where they claimed.

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.

Teague wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Teague wrote:I think I called the BF. I'd like to see the evidence where the police destroyed evidence. If she went somewhere after then she can't have been killed where they claimed.

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.

Beyond reasonable doubt. If the story falls apart and evidence stops supporting persecutions case then there will be a problem with reasonable doubt, especially if links can be made to the BF that would make the persecutions case less than airtight.

felltoearth wrote:Beyond reasonable doubt. If the story falls apart and evidence stops supporting persecutions case then there will be a problem with reasonable doubt, especially if links can be made to the BF that would make the persecutions case less than airtight.

Reasonable doubt is a non-issue at this point. Avery has been convicted and exhausted his appeals. The burden of proof is now on him. In essence, it's now up to him to prove his innocence "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Yes, after a conviction the presumption of innocence disappears and the doctrine of reasonable doubt no longer applies.

It will be down to whether the courts accept Zellner's arguments that the first trial was fatally flawed and Steven deserves a new, fair trial.

Digging into the motion there seems to be a lot of material which is directed at the police investigation, the prosecution, and the defense which would seem to indicate the first trial was a sham.

purplerat wrote:

Teague wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Teague wrote:I think I called the BF. I'd like to see the evidence where the police destroyed evidence. If she went somewhere after then she can't have been killed where they claimed.

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.

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.

A window yes. An exact (or even approximate) time of death no. So it's possible that Halbach could have initially left Avery's and still end up being killed within the window of time the prosecution theorized she was killed. As I stated above, if it turns out that can prove she was somewhere else well after that period of time then that would be a pretty good thing for Avery.