so you think she thinks she has a 0% chance to get him exonerated and get $ in a civil suit?

Although i disagree with him, his statement doesnt imply this at all. It means that her evaluation of those metrics had zero impact on her choice(aka she would take the case if it was 0% or 100% chance due to publicity, same with payout being 0 or 100 million). It doesnt mean there is zero.

Basically that with the publicity as it is, she is taking the case regardless of expected payout and chances of winning(which i disagree with fwiw)

There were people using this case for publicity before KZ and before MaM...as in 2009.

http://www.convolutedbrian.com/Suppo...W_Brochure.pdf

Anybody think that KK should be going to victim's rights conferences? What about the featured case notes. Was SA a violent career criminal who raped TH? Was he convicted of rape? Just make things up. Who cares. As long as you can profit.

Lol, love how it says she was brutally RAPED and murdered

Career criminal LOL

**On October 31, 2005, Steven Avery, a violent career criminal, brutally raped and murdered 25-year-old freelance photographer Teresa Halbach***

They could have called him a bank robber too. What is he going to do about it?

There should be a little humility before and after a case. He was already falsely accused of rape once. Is this any different?

How many years was in he jail? He is terrible at his career as a violent criminal. 18-year gap on his resume.

Yeah it's a bit different. First time put him in prison 18 years. 2nd he didn't know about.

He has quite an impressive criminal rap sheet considering he was in prison for 18 years. I think calling him a career criminal is pretty accurate.

# of crimes allegedly committed and convicted?

Once again, you are also taking the bigger picture out of here. They are publicizing that SA raped TH. He was found not guilty. Doesn't it disturb you that the police not only still think he did it, but promote a false conviction to fellow law enforcement officers. Fraud? Defamation?

If they would falsely portray not guilty verdicts as guilty, what don't you think they would change? They control(ed) the narrative until their was a closer examination. Stuff like this shows how deep their belief ran that this guy was guilty no matter what. If they have to bend the rules a bit to put this scum bucket away, that is a small price to pay.

If the "state" makes an educated guess to how a person was murdered, shouldn't they have to make an educated guess to how a crime scene was cleared/not cleared? And then the defense should be able to rebut the state's theory.

Here we have the state presenting a gruesome bound-rape, stabbing, shooting, and burning of a body. Vicious. No question about it.

How many hours would a crime scene like this take to remove all traces of the victim's DNA?
What type of cleaning materials would be needed to effectuate removal?

The FBI agent opined that it would be impossible to clean up the crime scene in the manner that the prosecution laid out.

I think that has led to so much "reasonable doubt" about this case. It was KK's press conference that really boxed in their narrative. It would have looked incredibly foolish to present a completely different scenario of how she was killed at the trial. What if they discovered that SA really killed her down the road and was never in the house, how would they go about "fixing" that with the public? KK gave such a descriptive novel of SA luring and sweating with DNA confirmation that they had no choice but to proceed down that path.

SA may well be guilty. Which is the sad part as well. That gets obfuscated in all of this. Lack of closure for anyone. Reiterates the importance of a methodical investigation.

I swear someone in this thread wrote the title of this article:

http://www.morningledger.com/steven-...fense/1368129/

Of course reading the article all you see Buting and Strang say is it's her job to go over every aspect of the case including the job the previous attorneys did. They didn't say anything that could be viewed as even a little bit inflammatory. I know it is lol Internet but Jesus.

As for Zellner and publicity obviously nobody with a death sentence in the Midwest would have never come across her name before this case. You goofballs.

Before she took on Avery's appeal she was sitting there waiting for her phone to ring.

This is fun. Even though 95% of all convictions are the result of plea bargains (lol at those of you who don't think that is massively broken), Iowa has decided exonerated prisoners who plead guilty aware not entitled to compensation for their wrongful incarceration.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/sto...ment/83070600/

Nice note on the University of Michigan Exoneration Registry. A guy was just recently released after 10-15 years when a witness came forward and said the guy was actually eating in a restaurant at the time of the murder. It is pretty upsetting how many exonerations only come long after a decade plus has been spent in prison.

It would be cool if the police investigated crimes with an eye towards determining what actually happen instead of just putting all their energy into getting the quickest possible conviction.

That's fair imo. If you didn't do it, don't plead guilty. Pleading guilty when you didn't do it is basically lying in court. If anything, state should get compensation from the exonerated prisoners to cover the cost of free housing/food.

Listened to the Serial Podcast recently (if you're not familiar check it out) and the kid who is in jail Adnan Syed actually tells other people coming through jail, whether you did it or not take the deal. Now he's pulling off his own experience but if you're facing some type of murder charge the odds of you winning are extremely slim. The way he puts it: would you rather spend your entire life in jail or have a chance of one day getting out? Pretty easy answer but if you know without certainty you have very little chance to win your case no matter what crime it's for the right play is to take the deal. Lie in court if you didn't do it, absolutely.

Can't even lol at this it's so wrong

Let's see how you feel when you are facing 20 years in prison for not pleading guilty vs. supervised parole for one year for pleading guilty.

Especially when you can't afford a good lawyer

Then go to jail for a year and don't seek compensation for wrongful incarceration. In fact I don't see how it's possibly "wrongful" incarceration when the person plead guilty to it. That's about as close to "rightful incarceration" as you can get.

Let's say you get wrongfully charged with a murder.

Your options are, 1. Take a plea deal and spend 10 years in prison. 2. Go to court and risk spending your life in jail. It's not crazy to think some may take the first option, especially if there is any semblance of a case against them.

It is never going to sink in to some that are criminal justice system is predicated on legalized extortion. 95% of all convictions are pleas. That is so far beyond reasonable and acceptable to view it as OK is dumbfounding.

You know how we solve the problem so courts don't get backed up and we don't extort innocent people into accepting pleas? We spend more freaking money on our criminal justice system. More courts, more judges, more trials. Throw some money to properly fund public defenders as well.

I don't know how anyone can justify the way the system works now with a straight face.

Everyone gets their day in court, well 5% of them do.

R u srs? Please spend like a week researching false/coerced confessions then come back and say that again.

You do realize I noted people who confessed were later exonerated on real evidence right?

You do realize false/coerced confessions and guilty pleas are different things right?

relevant to this thread:

FBI admits flaws in hair analysis over decades

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...310_story.html

Yeah if you are coerced into a false confession your pretty much have to accept any plea given you because jurors have not caught up to the reality that confessions should not be heavily weighted as evidence.

The point remains people were forced into false confessions, extorted to take a plea and then later exonerated. You understand that right?

You seem to think people who are pushed by professional interrogators to admit to something they didn't do should just be punished for not having a stronger will to not fold under the immense pressure.

I am on record in this thread as saying confessions should not be used as actual evidence in a criminal case but instead used as an investigative tool like a polygraph test. There is absolutely too much shady stuff that goes on in interrogations and they are given way to much weight compared to other evidence. If law enforcement can not make a case without using a confession as evidence they do not have a case. Dassey is a perfect example of all of this.