Having looked over the new evidence, it is new and it is evidence.
I already knew it's difficult to get convictions overturned, so I'm not shocked.
But it's not over yet.
New evidence is defined as evidence that wouldn't be available during the trial or initial appeal. none of this qualifies.
Whether or not it is evidence that could change the outcome of the initial trial I guess we will just agree to disagree but considering there was a substantial arguments that tried to call into question the bullet and the hood latch, and considering those two pieces of evidence were small in comparison to the others IE: Rav 4, avery's blood, human remains, bonfire etc.. I will respectfully tell you I think you're wrong.
But it has to be both new and evidence that could change the outcome of the original trial, so even if it could do so with the latter requirement it isn't "new".
"The examination of the bullet, for example, brought forth the new evidence that it had gone through wood not bone"
I think you should read what the expert said again and also consider that the state never said it went through bone nor would it be relevant to the conclusion he is guilty. The bullet could have grazed her, could have passed through only tissue etc..
But most importantly this isn't "new" evidence because this kind of testing was available during his trial and his appeal.
In an email to Rolling Stone, Zellner confirms that the judge was not aware of the agreement and that her decision came as a surprise to everyone involved.
"I am planning to discuss the situation with the prosecutor from the AG's office on Friday," Zellner writes. "They were also quite surprised by this ruling. Our hope is that we can enter into an agreed order to vacate the order with the AG, because we had agreed to test numerous additional items of evidence – including an examination of the RAV4 to determine if additional evidence could be gathered and tested.… In addition to the forensic tests, we informed the prosecutors in our face to face meeting on September 18, at their offices in Madison, Wisconsin, that we had three significant new witnesses on new Brady violations. Brady violations are the most frequent basis for convictions being vacated."
Zellner also says there are still "numerous items" listed on her original motion that have yet to be tested, suggesting that even without the new evidence, Judge Sutkiewicz's decision was based on an incomplete record. In her ruling, Sutkiewicz focused primarily on claims of evidence tampering, writing that test results related to the DNA found on Halbach's car key and car hood latch "inclusive." Zellner says of the judge's sparse six-page ruling contained "clear factual/legal errors" and "failed to even address certain issues." (Judge Sutkiewicz's office declined to comment.) Regardless, she says, "Our preference is to file an agreed motion with the AG to vacate this order."
Whether the AG's office will play ball remains to be seen – but yesterday, Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel said he was "pleased" with Sutkiewicz's decision. (The Wisconsin Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)
"The bottom line is neither we nor Mr. Avery have any intention of giving up or not proceeding to fight for his exoneration – because he is absolutely innocent," Zellner tells Rolling Stone. "It is not uncommon for judges at the trial court level to prematurely dismiss post-conviction petitions and get reversed by a higher court. We will press on regardless of which path we have to take and we will ultimately succeed."
So just a year ago Zellner had airtight alibis, eye witnesses and scientific testing that would exonerate avery (her claims) she has presented nothing of the sort as of yet, files a brief that contains none of these things; then requests more testing after filing her motion, doesn't notify the judge, gets her motion denied, files a request to vacate the motion with the court, doesn't mention any witnesses , now is claiming to have witnesses who can verify brady violations.... Her behavior has been unacceptable for an attorney and I hate to say this but I almost feel bad for Avery. He atleasts deserves an attorney who is more focused on her client than twitter and talking to conspiracy riddled news sites.
By the way, there are a couple of witnesses who mention a vehicle on hwy 147 in the caso report and one says its a jeep and other says its black, with no indication it was TH vehicle. So if that is what she is talking about; that isn't a brady violation because the defense received the caso report. Not that it matters though, I don't think she has any new witnesses because if she did, she would have mentionied them in her request to vacate.
This is like saying that all cases that has been sentenced after DNA testing first come around are not eligble for that testing now, which they are right?
NO it isn't. If new testing methods become available that can develop new information that is "new" evidence. All of Zelleners evidence is not "new". Several testing methods were available to determine which substances were on the bullet in 2005 Also the results of the testing isn't strong enough to change the outcome of the trial.
There are no new arguments there. She doesn't even have results for her new tests yet, assuming those results could even have the potential to change a trial (which there is no reason to think they could) what could possibly be gained from testing the rav 4 and hood latch that would change the trial?
Either way, her actual arguments that she thought were sufficient have already been presented and rejected. She has nothing else.
Argument from authority is pretty valid in this situation. I mean we're talking filings and statements of an expert in her field vs the speculations of a raving autist.
No it isn't valid. You're missing the point. It's not about me vs her and who knows more. Its about presenting her as a reliable source instead of the actual arguments shes made that have been responded to by lawyers and judges.
David Irving is probably the leading expert on nazi history and the third reich; he also happens to be a holocaust denier. If I were to get into an argument with a holocaust denier would it be sufficient to argue "david irving said" as a basis for what conclusions are justified? Or should we each present arguments? That is why its fallacious.
Not to mention, Zellner has a history (at least in this case) of lying and making unforgivable blunders that an attorney shouldn't make.