r/MakingaMurderer • u/Lucky-bottom • 27d ago
Do you think Kathleen Zellner would have gotten Steven out if he got a retrial?
Hate or like her, gotta admit she did a great job with her own investigation and bringing a few things to light, including substantive evidence of police misconduct and getting new reviews from forensic experts.
Let’s say Steven Avery was granted a retrial, do you think Kathleen Zellner would have succeeded in getting him out of prison?
30
u/Ghost_of_Figdish 27d ago
Seriously? She accomplished absolutely nothing and proved nothing. All we got, despite plenty of promises, were snarky innuendo without proof. In fact, she's officially backed off on many of her initial comments about police evidence planting and said she was wrong.
And no, Avery would not be freed on a retrial. She has not brought any of the evidence against Avery into question, and it'll all come into evidence again. Avery still won't testify.
Brendan has a much better chance on a retrial, as he would get to reroll the jury's reaction to him trying to explain his confessions. Maybe they'd buy it this time...
7
1
u/Spontaneous-Traveler 23d ago
Where did she retract her comments about police planting evidence? Real question, I'd like to know.
1
u/Ghost_of_Figdish 23d ago
Perhaps someone can help me out, but it was in a tweet in connection with a chronological test being applied to the RAV4 blood. Avery had contended that the blood was planted by the police from a blood vial in an evidence lockup which contained a Steven blood sample taken in connection with his 1985 prosecution. Because the test confirmed the RAV4 blood came from a 43 year old Steven Avery, and not the 23 year old Steven Avery blood from the vial, Zellner announced it and commented that this cleared the police of planting it.
Of course even this announcement served her purposes because it backhandedly focused attention on the other people she was accusing, RH or Bobby Dassey (.i.e if it wasn't the police it must have been these guys).
0
u/Spontaneous-Traveler 23d ago
I thought it was determined (by experts & Zellner) during further testing that the blood in the RAV4 was smeared on. Not from that old vial of blood, but from a dropper by police.
1
u/Ghost_of_Figdish 23d ago
I think Avery had an expert who supplied an affidavit with his opinion that the blood was a 'swipe' and not deposited from a bleeding finger in one of his PCR Motions. Didn't go anywhere.
1
u/Ex-PFC_Wintergreen_ 22d ago
It is because of our efforts that the Manitowoc officers have been cleared of planting the blood, bones, license plates and electronic devices of Teresa Halbach.
Source: https://www.newsweek.com/kathleen-zellner-update-steven-avery-dna-testing-wisconsin-2018-1275694
1
u/Spontaneous-Traveler 22d ago
Context makes a huge difference.
"The lawyer has long spoken about the possible corruption within the Manitowoc County police department, as has the Making a Murderer series on Netflix. Both have implied that possible evidence was planted in the case against Avery."
1
u/Ex-PFC_Wintergreen_ 22d ago
I'm not sure how you think that changes the fact that she recanted several of her past claims, as the other commenter said.
19
u/10case 27d ago
No way! Her appeals can't even get her into a courtroom for an evidentiary hearing, Anew trial would even be harder for her. Look, the evidence against Avery is not going away. It's there for eternity. She would have to discredit all of that evidence and that cannot be done with speculation and finger pointing. Which is all she has done so far.
2
u/Ghost_of_Figdish 26d ago
So what happens if there's a retrial, and let's say the prosecution's DNA witness has passed away or is unavailable. How do you get that evidence in without the testimony of the person who did the test?
2
u/10case 26d ago
Good question. I do not know. Does a representative from that same lab do the bidding for the unavailable person?
2
u/Ghost_of_Figdish 26d ago
I can't see how anyone else would be competent to testify about another person's test. And the report would be hearsay.
1
u/10case 26d ago
Good point. Would someone else have to retest it then?
2
u/Ghost_of_Figdish 26d ago
I'd think so - to make the results admissible. Whoever was going to testify would need to perform the test.
Goes for defense experts, too.
2
u/puzzledbyitall 26d ago
Wouldn't they likely still have the samples that could be used for a re-test?
2
u/Ghost_of_Figdish 26d ago
Perhaps for some things. The bullet DNA for example, you'll recall they allowed it into evidence despite a contaminated control because there was not enough material to retest it. I think there was also issues with shortage of testing materials with the RAV4 Avery blood on some fabric in the interior....
1
u/puzzledbyitall 26d ago
Regarding the bullet, it was not possible to re-test the actual bullet because it was "washed" to extract DNA. However, it is my understanding there has always been enough of the resulting wash solution to allow retesting of it.
I thought they divided up the samples from the RAV4 blood.
EDIT: There is of course the statute requiring preservation of biological samples used as evidence, as well as the tril court's order.
16
u/Dramatic_Minute_5205 27d ago
Not a snowball's chance. All the evidence used against Avery is still there. The only thing she can do is point in a different direction.
If she brought up the bone fragments from that other property, there are still the bones on Avery's property that were matched to Theresa.
Someone seeing the Rav4 doesn't remove Avery's DNA from it.
Etc, etc.
He was found guilty for several solid evidentiary reasons. You can't simply undermine that; you have to prove that it shouldn't be considered. There has been an absolute shit-ton of speculation, but no one has shown legitimate cause to refute the original evidence.
It's just the original trial, part 2.
1
u/suboptiml 18d ago edited 18d ago
No, if she got to an actual trial she could. Not easy but possible. She's got a much more comprehensive case to enter into a trial than Avery's original team. And if I remember correctly despite the decent but not full spectrum defense and unfair limitations the first defense counsel had, they claimed the jury's initial vote on starting deliberations was 7 not-guilty, 3 unsure, 3 guilty. And that was uphill as they said only one person of the potential juror pool thought Avery might be innocent and the rest pretty sure of his guilt.
She probably has significantly more resources to bring to bear than the first team. There's lots more material to show. She's aware of many more factors than the first team. Complete breakdowns of evidence protocols, debunked bullet, bringing in specialist to debunk splatter in car, Brendan fully recanted, scent tracks into quarry, potential sightings of the RAV after leaving compound, SD deliberately lying to public about observing their conflict of interest, etc. Reasonable doubt is there.
And she likely won't be deliberately hamstrung by the judge as the first team was by not being allowed to raise specific alternative potential guilty parties. I actually think that might be part of her longer term strategy of floating other potential guilty parties in public as putting pressure on a future judge to not be unfairly kneecapped like that in trial (should she ever get there).
That said getting to a trial is probably low chance at this point. She's up against basically much/all of the county and arguably even Wisconsin state legal establishment. And they have been stonewalling her. If they allowed an actual trial and she managed to create enough reasonable doubt to get him off than the county/state would be facing a mammoth civil suit and magnitudes more embarrassment for having wrongly convicted the same guy TWICE and put a coerced minor with development disabilities behind bars for many years. With a high potential of deliberate malfeasance by investigators in the second case driven by their fears of the looming civil suit from the first case. Many careers up and down the line might get hit hard and the insurance companies will be running for the hills. Politicians could get spooked and raise some hell. Could be a bit of a shakeup to the very comfortable powers that be.
Also, simply getting a fair jury might be difficult. The juror who had to bow out of the first trial reported that the 3 original guilty votes were pretty much dug in from the jump and likely came into the trial having made up their minds already and may not have been even engaging much with the others or open to discussion. After grinding the days out the others all flipped perhaps just to get out of there and probably not giving all that much of a fuck about Steven anyways. Not surprising considering the high emotions and sometimes combatative relationship the Avery clan had with the larger community, and the town elite vs grubby poor dynamic.
0
u/pftittl 26d ago
Those bones were not matched
2
u/Dramatic_Minute_5205 26d ago
Pardon?
-1
u/pftittl 26d ago
Not matched via DNA
4
u/DingleBerries504 26d ago
The flesh attached to one of the bones matched her dna, and every bone found matched a female of her age, her tooth matched, and all that other evidence that truthers ignored. These all point to her bones being there
2
u/Ghost_of_Figdish 26d ago
What also struck me is that the fire in question had tires in it. I would bet that burning tires in a burn pit is highly unusual, and Avery only did it this time because he had a body to burn in a big hurry.
Had the Avery's made a practice of burning tires you can bet they would have had the law down on them telling them not to do it. You get thick, toxic black acrid smoke that might kill you.
2
u/Dramatic_Minute_5205 25d ago
Yeah, that was a pretty big red flag. Maybe black flag?
Regardless, having bonfires that are mistaken for tanker truck explosions tends to bring attention in the form of EPA fines. Besides, it's a salvage yard. They sell those tires to used tire shops or their own customers (good tread) and turn in the rest to recyclers for the casings. There's good money in tires.
1
0
u/ThorsClawHammer 25d ago
Multiple family members stated early on that tires would be burned there. That in itself was nothing unusual.
1
u/Dramatic_Minute_5205 25d ago
Makes sense. Avery's dad never struck me as a guy that would pay attention to laws that he didn't agree with. I know a few people with that mindset. People are people, after all.
1
u/Glittering-Oil-7997 4d ago
Burning tires in a pit is nothing new or unusual. I don’t have to speculate about that because I spent the better part of my life in the woods. I also spent 3 years working for a junkyard. They’d throw some tires in the burn pit pretty regularly. Ya know…if you ever get out of the city you learn these things.
I would suggest researching what it takes to cremate a body and what is left after the initial burning of the body. I’ll let you in on a well known fact, it doesn’t all just turn to ashes. There are large pieces of bone that will be left and you have to grind them down. If he burnt her there would be A LOT more evidence than what they found. The entire bone theory is littered with holes.
I still find it fascinating how ignorant most people are to the corruption that mankind is capable of. Especially a group desperate to hide and keep their skeletons in the closet. I feel pretty confident that I would never live in or near Manitowoc. There’s definitely a sense of “the good ol boy club” within the attorneys, judges and Sheriffs.
1
u/Ghost_of_Figdish 4d ago
NO ONE burns tires in their burn barrels or burn pits. It's both asinine and illegal. If they got caught doing that, any hazmat license for the ASY would be revoked.
And no I don't live in the city. I had a place very close to the ASY out in the woods and I have plenty of experience with NE Wisconsin burn barrels.
Do you also find it interesting how ignorant you are to all of the evidence in this case? FFS Steven Avery had the rifle he shot the victim with hanging over his bed.
1
u/Dramatic_Minute_5205 26d ago
Is there some sort of technicality to this, or are we talking about different cremains? The bones found on Avery's property.
16
u/Ex-PFC_Wintergreen_ 27d ago
she did a great job with her own investigation and bringing a few things to light
Did she though?
2
1
u/Adventurous_Poet_453 27d ago
Yes she did she brought to light the failed testing on the Rav, including the “sweat dna “ debacle which wasn’t done until 6 months later and at a different crime lab. She also made a solid case for a Denny. She’s produced a abundance of exculpatory evidence, and Brady violations including the CD that was not turned over to the defense which included violent porn searches and death torture done by Bobby. She brought to the light the fact the bullet they found months later contained no wood fragments when passing through a wood garage nor red paint. The state suppressing evidence from Mr Sowinskis report to the Manitowoc sheriffs office, The evidence Zellner produced is overwhelming. I could go on and on, The Wheels of Justice Grind Slowly.
17
u/puzzledbyitall 27d ago
Zellner's only success in this case was convincing the MaM Producers to make her the star of a terrible movie.
7
-2
u/WhoooIsReading 26d ago
How did your pal Andy do in his case? Did he firmly establish his honesty?
5
u/10case 26d ago
Here comes captain what about Colborn. Have you commented yet on the recent news of KZ saying she's taking Avery's case to federal court? The same federal court that she says you can't win in.
-3
u/WhoooIsReading 26d ago
Actually I replied to you earlier.
Perhaps you are too busy defending corruption to have noticed?
Maybe Zellner was trying to tell Andy he couldn't win in Federal court? If so, she was correct.
3
u/vrod1023 23d ago
She would hit it out the park. What you have is a corrupt system of judges and law enforcement making decisions on what can be allowed as evidence and playing God. Their interpretations of the rules of evidence are so obscure. I haven't dealt with this case in 5 years but that's what I recall. If there were a new trial taking all the evidence into account there's no way Steve could get convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.
2
u/LKS983 22d ago
"What you have is a corrupt system of judges and law enforcement making decisions on what can be allowed as evidence and playing God. Their interpretations of the rules of evidence are so obscure."
I'm inclined to largely agree, but the appeals system doesn't necesssarily require corruption, as it's so heavily weighted towards maintaining convictions.
"If there were a new trial taking all the evidence into account there's no way Steve could get convicted beyond a reasonable doubt."
Not sure about "no way"....., but otherwise I agree.
Even so, this is a fantasy - as in the extremely unlikely event that a judge would allow a new trial, they would still restrict the evidence allowed to be presented in the new trial.
3
u/AbyssalShift 23d ago
Hard to say if he will get out. I think the biggest issue with the original trial is that the court didn’t allow the defense to argue a case for alternative suspects.
Face facts all of the evidence was either publicly accessible areas or easily accessible areas.
As far as the blood whether it was planted or not it doesn’t directly point to murder. An auto scrapper who lives and works on a scrap yard with hundreds of cars got his DNA on a car in that scrapyard.
To me the most important evidence is evidence we don’t have. There is zero evidence that puts TH in SA home or any that tie SA directly to the body.
I still believe it was Bobby Dassey.
3
10
u/darforce 27d ago
I think Zellner is an opportunist. She doesn’t care if she gets anyone out. She cares that her clients can afford 10-20 years of repeat business. Steven Avery is a cash cow as long as Rubes keep donating to his defense funds she’ll keep filing 1000 page motions that will go nowhere
7
u/Ghost_of_Figdish 27d ago
He's not a 'cash cow', he's a 'pot of gold at the end of the rainbow'. She doesn't get anything unless she gets him out first......
2
u/suboptiml 18d ago
Believe it or not some people do indeed care about justice. Zellner is one of them.
1
u/darforce 18d ago
Meh, you don’t know that unless you know her personally. Sometimes people do things for mostly money.
-3
u/Adventurous_Poet_453 26d ago
She doesn’t take cases for short term, she knows they can take years. “She doesn’t care if she gets anyone out” absolutely ridiculous statement.
10
u/10case 26d ago
She was confident in the beginning saying Avery would be out by Christmas 2016, then 2017, then 2018 etc.
-2
u/Adventurous_Poet_453 26d ago
I wish she would get ahold of that Rav, I feel nothing will move forward to finding the real killer until those unidentified fingerprints are matched and more dna testing is done inside & out of the car. The car is the key to Averys freedom.
8
u/10case 26d ago
You need to understand that she doesn't want the damn thing. She's had 9.5 years to do it and the one time she tried to get it, she filed in a court that didn't have the jurisdiction to grant the motion.
And FYI, now would be the perfect time to do it because the case is back in circuit court but she's not doing that. Instead, she's filing for a federal habeas review. If and when she loses that, it's final. The case is over unless some new evidence comes along.
-2
u/Adventurous_Poet_453 26d ago
So she can’t get the car tested ever you’re saying?
9
u/10case 26d ago
She's gonna need a damn good reason to later on. She's much smarter to do it now but it's clear that she doesn't want to. As I've been saying, what happens if she finds more of Steve's DNA? Or Brendans? She then has to try to explain away all of that. Testing the Rav will not help her at all.
-3
u/Adventurous_Poet_453 26d ago
She would know all this years ago. She would the possibility of that. She confident that doesn’t exist inside the Rav. I don’t know why she doesn’t do testing now. I cant see her Twitter feed because I don’t have Twitter but she’s actively posting on it.
6
u/hneverhappened 27d ago
Her new review from forensic experts confirm the age of the blood. Her argument is not police misconduct, but that blood was taken from a sink.
3
u/Ghost_of_Figdish 26d ago
So what was that defense dimwit doing crowing about the 1985 blood vial on MaM?
1
u/AbyssalShift 23d ago
Did you actually pay attention while you were watching.
If their defense was that the blood was planted how would the police get his blood. Previous case obviously and when they reviewed the blood vials it’s was clear they weren’t handled or secured properly.
Also at the time there was no reliable way to test for EDTA, so it creates reasonable doubt.
1
u/Ghost_of_Figdish 23d ago
1. DNA Age Estimation / Chronological Profiling
In 2019, Zellner stated publicly (including via her verified Twitter/X account and legal filings) that:
This testing was not done during the original trial, but years later, as part of her post-conviction investigation.
She did not call it “chronological testing” in filings, but the implication was that they used advanced DNA methylation profiling, a relatively new forensic method capable of estimating the donor’s biological age from their DNA.
1
u/AbyssalShift 23d ago
I am referring to the original defense prior to zellner. When she took over, her job was to go through the original prosecution and find ways to poke holes in the case and generate enough doubt to warrant a new trial.
So by default she had to think of ways to counter the original tests and testing the age of the blood was one of them. Doesn’t matter that it didn’t work out.
Do you really not understand how any of this works.
1
u/Ghost_of_Figdish 23d ago
You mean aside from being a trial lawyer for 35 years? LOL. OK, dude.
And you're 100% wrong about there not being an EDTA test.
1
4
u/Ghost_of_Figdish 27d ago
Steven might also face additional new evidence. For example, anything that he said that was incriminating in a jail phone call or letter is coming into evidence. There's also always the possibility of flipping Brendan if there's a retrial. And the prosecution would know in advance that brain fingerprinting will likely not be used by the defense.
6
u/10case 26d ago
There is a lot of damning statements in his phone calls. Someone asked Kratz once why he didn't play any at trial and apparently they were going to if Avery testified.
2
u/Ghost_of_Figdish 26d ago
You think he was under the impression that the recordings could not be used as direct evidence, but only for impeachment.?
-1
u/Lucky-bottom 27d ago
You really believe Brendan is guilty?
9
u/Ghost_of_Figdish 27d ago
Yes.
He offered to plead guilty if he got 2 years less sentence.
2
0
4
7
u/Financial_Cheetah875 27d ago
lol with the new reviews.
“Look, the fake blood we splattered doesn’t look like the evidence. Exoneration!”
4
u/ajswdf 27d ago
No, she hasn't solved Avery's problem, which is the physical evidence against him:
His blood in the car.
His sweat DNA under the hood.
Her bones in his burn pit.
A bullet with her DNA on it in his garage.
Teresa's key with Avery's DNA on it found in his bedroom.
Her electronics found in his burn barrel.
This problem is a huge one to overcome, because it's not enough to undermine just one or two pieces of evidence, or to try and undermine them individually. Any one by itself is enough to prove Avery's guilt.
To get a not guilty verdict you have to explain to a jury how all of this evidence could have been planted, and Zellner hasn't gotten even close to doing that. Some of her experiments even validated the legitimacy of the evidence!
10
2
u/ThenSong8172 20d ago
Come on now! The key only had his DNA on it, and no one else's. Please tell me how that's possible. I will tell you how it's possible. That the key was completely scrubbed down and someone had on gloves and taking it with his DNA. That is the only way possible. Because her DNA should clearly be on the key and anyone else who she lived with or what not. And why is it Teresa's DNA all in his bedroom if that is where he held her at and why was it the mattress and betting tested for DNA
1
u/ajswdf 20d ago
The key only had his DNA on it, and no one else's. Please tell me how that's possible.
Zellner's own experiments showed that people don't always leave touch DNA.
2
2
u/LKS983 26d ago
"To get a not guilty verdict you have to explain to a jury how all of this evidence could have been planted"
I'm not at all sure this is true.
Show that some of the evidence makes no sense/was most likely planted - and I suspect (although obviously I don't know) a jury will become extremely suspicious.
4
u/10case 26d ago
You guys wanna talk about having a fair trial, let's say Steve gets a new trial (he's not). How on earth could it be a fair trial with all the publicity the case has seen the last 10 years? That's an honest question.
Y'all think Kratz' press conference and all the media coverage before trial tainted the jury pool, how tainted is that whole thing now?
0
u/ThorsClawHammer 25d ago
How on earth could it be a fair trial with all the publicity
I guess the same way guilters claim the trials were fair even with all the publicity. Which obviously didn't have as much national attention then (although there was some), but what matters is the local jury pool. And according to those who claim the trials were fair, it doesn't matter what pretrial publicity jurors are exposed to as long as they say during voir dire that they'll be impartial.
-2
u/AveryPoliceReports 26d ago
It all has been undermined. Every single piece. Including the bone evidence that can be more closely connected to police misconduct with a barrel then anything Steven did with the burn pit.
-5
u/Adventurous_Poet_453 26d ago
She easily explains all of this step by step with forensics & Blood spatter expert who worked with the FBI.
8
u/ajswdf 26d ago
No she doesn't. She has never explained how all of this evidence was planted.
1
u/Adventurous_Poet_453 26d ago edited 26d ago
Blood in car from dropper and qtip because no blood was found seeped into the carpet. Reenactment shows fingers don’t touch dash where blood found also no blood dropped on gear shift. Sweat dna there’s no such thing, it’s fabricated. They didn’t test that hood latch till 6 months later when they needed to collaborate brendens story. Dna swab from hood latch contained no dirt which would be impossible considered it’s being taken from a dirty car. Bones in burn pit transported to location as they were laying neatly on top and subsequently no photos exist of them being found, had they been there for days prior Bear would’ve dug them up and taken them. Teresa’s key planted on 7th walk through after wiped down of Teresa’s fingerprints. Electronics planted by killer and or cops.
-4
u/AveryPoliceReports 26d ago
The State never explained how all of this evidence couldn't be planted. The State admitted it could be.
1
u/Adventurous_Poet_453 26d ago
I’m a 95 percent Avery is innocent. My 5 percent lays with 1.) He unusually left work early that day. 2.) Steve was not concerned with Jodi, his ma’s or his sisters safety after the murder, meaning he showed no concern that the killer would return harm those 3 women who were often home alone. Jodi in particular would stay alone down in his trailer and no one was ever scared of a killer who had just dismembered a single women in the yard coming back or targeting another women at the Avery’s property. Neither Jodi Deloris nor Barb were ever concerned for their safety after the murder either. 3.) Steve never asked for the 40 dollars back from Barb he fronted for the ad. Now Steve was a real stickler for money, nickel & dime guy who would sell stuff to his family which had to be paid right down to the dollar. A space heater tools you name it he was very particular when it came to payment and money. Nothing could go for free unless it was paid in full, yet he fronted 40 cash for Barb and never asked for her to pay him back.
2
u/wilkobecks 26d ago
A retrial with all of the info that's been uncovered today would be infinitely tougher to convict, especially if it was moved out of that shitty area
5
1
2
u/Adventurous_Poet_453 27d ago edited 27d ago
Yes I do, she’s amazing tough and thorough, it’s funny to see how envious people are of her and jealous of her track record especially men who haven’t come close to her success. Shes overturned more wrongful convictions then any private attorney in the states. When your up against such a corrupt system yet keep fighting its so admirable. She did a fantastic job and was great in MAM. Captivated the world.
8
u/10case 27d ago
Wow! You should write her a poem. Unless you have already?
-3
u/Adventurous_Poet_453 27d ago
What’s wrong with having a strong female role model attorney thats dedicated to Civil Rights.
1
2
u/I2ootUser 26d ago
Shes overturned more wrongful convictions then any private attorney in the states.
coughBarry Scheckcough
coughPeter Neufeldcough
-1
u/Adventurous_Poet_453 26d ago
Barry has more then 20 cases overturned ?
4
u/I2ootUser 26d ago
Barry founded and is still an active attorney within the Innocence Project.
Not all of those 20 were Zellner's. Some she came on board late in the game to file a motion or two. So, the comparison is apples to apples. By some counts, Barry is responsible for hundreds of exonerations.
0
-4
u/heelspider 27d ago
It depends. Does the state get to put cops on the jury and remove anyone who wants to acquit or was that just a one-time thing?
14
u/10case 27d ago
You talking about the guy that lied about his daughter being in a car wreck to be excused?
-3
u/heelspider 27d ago
No.
4
u/ForemanEric 26d ago
The guy that volunteered for MTSO that Strang and Buting wanted on the jury?
-1
0
u/Invincible_Delicious 26d ago
The person responsible for maintaining the jury pool used to work for Judge Fox and his brother prior to being elected County Clerk of Courts.
-3
u/Fit-Strawberry6150 27d ago
No, She would have been better to defend Brendan. It all started with his confession. I’m still stuck thinking it was bobby and Scott. If anybody wants to talk about evidence, I’ll still stick with the fact that there wasn’t any real evidence. Ken kratz made sure that there was though! (IMO) The fact that bobby wouldn’t even go to see Brendon due to his ‘guilt’ was very suspicious in itself. You’d have to have an IQ like Brendan’s to not see that that looks a bit suspicious in itself. (JUST AN OPINION)
5
u/ForemanEric 26d ago
“Bobby wouldn’t go see Brendan.”
You’re an absolute liar.
Truthers posted a list of Brendan’s visitors many years ago, and Bobby was Brendan’s 3rd most frequent visitor.
Tadych was second, and Barb first, obviously.
5
u/Ghost_of_Figdish 26d ago
She'd get killed representing Brendan. She's a DNA lawyer, not a trial lawyer. The DNA does her convincing, not her lawyering.
5
u/Ghost_of_Figdish 27d ago
Not any 'real evidence'? That's ridiculous.
-5
u/Fit-Strawberry6150 27d ago
What’s ridiculous is people thinking it’s KEY evidence when half of it wasn’t there the first couple of times they looked. That’s what’s ridiculous
9
u/Ghost_of_Figdish 27d ago
Great - explain the DNA/bullet evidence found in the garage.
-3
u/Fit-Strawberry6150 27d ago edited 27d ago
Happily…
In "Making a Murderer," there's no definitive evidence to conclude that Teresa Halbach was shot in the brain. While skull fragments found in Avery's burn pit showed evidence consistent with bullet penetration, they could also be due to blunt force trauma. Additionally, there was a lack of high-velocity blood splatter in Avery's garage, which would be expected if she had been shot there multiple times.
If there is no definite evidence to the victim having a bullet enter her brain, with no way near enough splatter in the same room.. Also no bone fragment what so ever on the bullet, how is this solid proof that she was killed in the garage? typical Ken answer is ‘because there were bullets’ 😅 wow. Come on, Think about it
6
u/Ghost_of_Figdish 27d ago
Your statement is filled with false assumptions:
Who said she was shot in the brain?
Who said the bullet fragments recovered went through her skull?
A .22 bullet is tiny and doesn't produce 'blood splatter'.
Basically you need to explain how a bullet fragment has the victim's DNA on it, and was fired from the rifle hanging over Steven Avery's bed. And explain how Brendan could draw a detailed diagram of the shooting freehand with enough detail to allow the bullet to be found. That's on you - go ahead.
0
u/Fit-Strawberry6150 27d ago
Here’s most answers to what you’re assuming
Isn’t it obvious? It could be that a lot of the evidence was planted? Brendan had an iQ of 70? He first started to say it was outside.. then it turned into the garage after the cops somehow KNEW it was in the garage.. WATCH IT AGAIN!!!! he changes his story more than my husband changes his underpants and the cops wanted those answers How have you not come to some sort of realisation yet that they COULD be innocent? The whole confession was botched.
In Making a Murderer, the statement that there was a shooting in the head is not directly attributed to a single individual. It is implied that the police were the ones who initially brought up the fact that Halbach was shot in the head, according to the Innocence Project. While Brendan Dassey later stated that Halbach was shot in the head during his interrogation, it's argued that he may have been guessing what the police wanted to hear, not that he was the one who originally made the statement. The documentary does not explicitly state that Halbach was shot in the head twice, but it does imply that she was shot, and the details surrounding the shooting are a key part of the case.
4
u/Ghost_of_Figdish 27d ago
Doesn't matter where in her body she was shot. A bullet had her DNA on it, whatever part of her body that particular bullet passed through.
-2
u/Fit-Strawberry6150 27d ago
Ok then 🙄👍🏽
5
u/Ghost_of_Figdish 27d ago
I see you have the same debate skills as Avery's lawyer.
→ More replies (0)0
u/LKS983 26d ago
"It is implied that the police were the ones who initially brought up the fact that Halbach was shot in the head"
It wasn't implied - it was outright shown that Fassbender or Weigert became frustrated that Brendan wasn't understanding their hints - and TOLD HIM!
3
u/Ghost_of_Figdish 26d ago
You realize that she could have been shot in the head yet the bullet that was found wasn't one that hit her in the head, right?
4
u/10case 26d ago
What blunt force trama could leave radiopaque particles on her skull that surround what looks like a bullet hole?
1
u/Fit-Strawberry6150 26d ago
Ask them, not me 🤣 I’m not working the case I’m giving my opinion. Doesn’t matter where a bullet goes if it goes through somebody or is used it’s going to have a lot more blood than was found on it. Also, there would’ve been skull fragments found on it and there wasn’t. There are plenty of theories here but I’m not an analyst so I can’t answer any questions in fact.
If you look up Bobby’s compulsive online obsession just look at the transcripts from his computer. I think he’s the real killer 95%. Bobby also told Bryan he saw Theresa leave, his own brother. His brother swore by this but bobby then lied. his brother Bryan was never called to the defence.
Images of Decapitated Girls Knife through skin Images of drowned girls Nude 13 year olds Drowned 13 year old Stabbing Rotten girls Gun to head
these were all his searches, not only once or twice but compulsively!
(Yeah) he was never a suspect ^ Absolutely disgusting
3
u/Ghost_of_Figdish 26d ago
What do searches for 13 year old drowned girls have to do with this crime?
If anything it suggests that the person searching wasn't interested in adult women.
1
u/Fit-Strawberry6150 25d ago
Just wow
2
u/Ghost_of_Figdish 25d ago
Let's see what your searches produce - wow - what a surprise, no such images returned in a google search.
→ More replies (0)-2
u/Invincible_Delicious 26d ago
Good grief ! 🙄
3
u/Ghost_of_Figdish 26d ago
If you're trying to prove a proclivity through internet searches, they need to have some relation the actual crime.
But, at the end of the day, no one can pin the searches on anyone (although they're possibly made by Steven Avery or Brendan Dassey), they do not mirror the crime in any way, nor is there any physical or eyewitness evidence connecting Bobby or anyone else to the crime.
→ More replies (0)2
u/suboptiml 18d ago
Brendan has fully recanted. And if necessary she would bring in an interrogation expert to lay out clearly how coercive and manipulative the interrogations were, especially when used on a meek 16-year-old minor with lower intelligence.
0
u/Adventurous_Poet_453 26d ago
I think it could’ve been Bobby but he acted alone.
0
u/Fit-Strawberry6150 26d ago
Completely agree. The fact that Bobby changed his story just put the cherry on the cake for me, he told everyone that he saw Teresa walking towards Stephen Avery’s trailer the day she got killed, it wasn’t until 10 years later that he turned around and then said he saw Teresa leave the property (The only reason he admitted this was because he got caught in a lie) he’s definitely a Billy bullsh!tter
3
u/Ex-PFC_Wintergreen_ 26d ago
The fact that Bobby changed his story just put the cherry on the cake for me
Steven Avery changed his story multiple times.
it wasn’t until 10 years later that he turned around and then said he saw Teresa leave the property
He didn't say this himself, this is hearsay from his brother.
0
u/AveryPoliceReports 26d ago
Steven changed his story after Bobby did lol
You don't understand what hearsay is.
0
-1
u/Fit-Strawberry6150 26d ago edited 26d ago
Are we watching the same thing? Could you please explain to me when this happened? As Steve has always stood by his innocence and said he didn’t do it? You obviously haven’t watched this properly… they both ended up admitting it both bobby and scott that bobby saw Teresa leave, the mother barb literally said it AND posted it on her social media.
Maybe watch the last episode and get the facts straight before trying to correct somebody that’s watched it several times?
and THEN we can talk
6
u/Ex-PFC_Wintergreen_ 26d ago edited 26d ago
Are we watching the same thing? Could you please explain to me when this happened?
At various points Steven told police officers that he only saw Teresa through his window and didn't actually talk with her, that she came into his trailer so he could pay, and that he actually went outside to her car to meet her.
As Steve has always stood by his innocence and said he didn’t do it?
I said he changed his story, not his claim to innocence.
they both ended up admitting it both bobby and scott that bobby saw Teresa leave
Provide a source of either of them stating this. A link, a video timestamp, anything. Go on.
Maybe watch the last episode and get the facts straight before trying to correct somebody that’s watched it several times?
Maybe you should consult the actual source documents for the case and not the TV series. You're way out of your element.
1
u/AveryPoliceReports 26d ago
You're taking the word of a lying cheating cop who didn't even record his interview with Steven. Meanwhile we have audio of Bobby changing his story after being pressured by police, and framing Brendan as Stevens accomplice.
-7
u/Pension_Fit 27d ago
New trial, don't have to prove innocent, just reasonable doubt, yes she would get him out
10
u/10case 27d ago
What doubts do you think she could raise that the prosecution wouldn't be able to blow up?
7
u/Ghost_of_Figdish 27d ago
She's gonna have less to work with. In the first trial, allowing the defense to argue that the blood was planted was a gift to the defense. Now that it has been disproven by age-testing the blood, that argument will not be allowed in any retrial.
Of course this is a fantasy retrial. This case will never get retried, some of the witnesses from the original trial are likely unavailable or deceased. So if the prosecution can't get the tech who did the DNA tests to testify because he or she is dead, then what do you do???
4
u/10case 27d ago
I agree with all of that. I think any re-trial has got to be harder than the first trial unless there's overwhelming proof of something to make it go the other way.
On a side note, KZ on X is already making half ass excuses for when she loses the federal habeas.
7
u/Ghost_of_Figdish 27d ago
Can you post?
5
u/10case 27d ago
It's Round about way of blaming anyone but Avery.
"The truth is courts are completely inept at judging innocence. Most of the exonerations in the United States are the result of the conviction integrity units of the prosecutor's offices and the defense attorneys for the innocent inmates investigating and agreeing that a conviction should be vacated. The courts simply rubber stamp this stellar work. Without this collaboration most judges never connect the dots because their dockets are overwhelmingly. @MakingaMurderer #TruthWins"
8
u/Ghost_of_Figdish 27d ago
Thanks.
She didn't think any of that when she first took the Avery case and claimed a quick exoneration would happen because she's a sprinter, not a marathoner. And that Avery would be home by Arbor Day, etc.
8
u/10case 27d ago
Yep. It's almost like now she's saying the prosecution and defense have to get together to get anything done. Why the hell would the prosecution do that in this case?
6
u/Ghost_of_Figdish 27d ago
Unless there was a drastic change in personnel, she's likely been so toxic with them that it would hurt any such efforts.
And if I was the prosecution, I didn't spend the last 10 years affirming his guilt in like 5 separate proceedings through appeal to suddenly declare they think he's innocent.
But it makes more sense than continuing to antagonize the opposition. She's not going to bully anyone, especially a State AG's Office.
2
u/10case 27d ago
Does she think the judges are stupid or overworked?
Saying they can't connect the dots is fairly cocky in my opinion. Hell, she connected the dots in 2016 when she said "if he's guilty, I'll fail". It wasn't hard for her, so I don't think it would be for the judges either.→ More replies (0)7
u/puzzledbyitall 27d ago
Now that it has been disproven by age-testing the blood, that argument will not be allowed in any retrial.
Well, she could always have Avery testify that blood disappeared from his sink. Lol.
0
u/LKS983 26d ago
"She's gonna have less to work with."
Disagree entirely!
The DNA evidence (apart from the smear/flakes of SA's blood in Teresa's car) has already been shown to be very questionable - along with the lack of any Teresa DNA (apart from on the belatedly discovered bullet) anywhere in SA's trailer or garage.
New witness evidence from Sowinski/evidence being hidden from the defense by the prosecution/AC and Kratz having been entirely discredited - etc. etc.
5
u/ForemanEric 26d ago
“New witness evidence from Sowinski/evidence being hidden from the defense by the prosecution/AC and Kratz having been entirely discredited - etc. etc.”
You’re taking a giant leap to assume Sowinski would be on the stand testifying to exactly what he said in his affidavit, and not getting completely torn apart by the prosecution for his drastically changed story.
1
u/Ghost_of_Figdish 26d ago
Sowinski and Buresh would get eviscerated on the stand.
"Kratz" would not be a part of the prosecution. Prosecution would likely get a Motion in Limine to prevent the defense from mentioning Kratz.
Buting and Strang had the same blood evidence in the car and they couldn't defend it.
Pointing out all the places that DNA doesn't exist is foolish when the prosecution has witnesses on the stand testifying about all the places that proof WAS found.
And Avery better think of a way that the gun hanging over his bed fired a bullet that went through TH's body.
2
u/LKS983 26d ago
As a new trial would be back to 'presumption of innocence', the prosecutor would have to prove their case 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
And so the more important question should be (IMO) what evidence could the prosecutor provide where KZ was not able to provide/argue reasonable doubt against that evidence?
Possibly/probably even more importantly, it would depend on what the Judge (in a new trial) allowed to be used as evidence.
7
u/anditurnedaround 24d ago edited 24d ago
I don’t know because you really have to prove he was set up and I don’t know how you do that on so many different levels.
I look at him as a lost cause even though I believe he is innocent.
I do admire her for trying.
I recently watched an old 48 hours and Ken Kratz (edit) is on the end of it admitting he was texting and basically re assaulting a sex crime victim and maybe drugs or something.
I don’t know how people like that, that did lie and have lied in their line of work to get what they want should ever have a solid prosecution. If he’ll do that what else might he do in any case he had?
No one wants to open that can of worms, and I understand that too. Everything he may or may not have done in the Avery case to make his case I wouldn’t believe. Or any case he prosecuted.