Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Making a Murderer Making a Murderer

12-15-2017 , 08:08 AM
Zellner has referenced de novo review. Here's what it entails:

De Novo Appeal Law and Legal Definition

De novo appeal refers to an appeal in which the appellate court uses the trial court's record but reviews the evidence and law without yielding to the trial court's rulings. "De novo" is a standard of review that can be applied on appeal. When an issue is reviewed de novo, the reviewing court substitutes its judgment for that of the trial court. "De novo" is a Latin expression meaning "anew," "from the beginning," "afresh." De novo appeal is also referred to as de novo judicial review or de novo review.

Trials de novo are uncommon due to the time and judicial resources required to try the facts of a case more than once. However, De novo review of legal matters on appeal is quite common. Appellate courts often hear legal issues de novo, with no deference afforded to the trial court, where the issue may not have gotten full briefing and attention. Decisions of federal administrative agencies are generally subject to de novo review in the U.S. District Courts.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/de-novo-appeal/
12-22-2017 , 03:17 PM
Video of Zellner in action: http://www.newsweek.com/steven-avery...tor-key-750323

BAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAA
12-23-2017 , 08:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Video of Zellner in action: http://www.newsweek.com/steven-avery...tor-key-750323

BAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAA
Wow she really does have "The World's top scientists"! (and world's top cabinet shakers too!) If this doesn't fully exonerate Cuddly Stevie-Bear then I for one don't know what will...

Nice to see the petition is gaining grounds on other high traffic social media platforms such as Twitter. In other news Avery's groupies are already starting to turn on Barb & co. Be interesting to see if they eventually schism into separate groupie camps if Zellner eventually blames Brendan Dassey.
12-23-2017 , 05:25 PM
I don't think there's any chance Zellner will accuse Brendan.

Good to see that Zellner made a good faith effort to see if Andy Colburn's story about shaking the cabinet could possibly have produced a key on a lanyard.
12-23-2017 , 05:29 PM
A pretty dumb idea - trying to block Netflix from airing a documentary as if it had anything to do with actors like Louis CK or Kevin Spacey.

If signers of the petition want to stop hearing about this case they always have the choice to quit the forums they frequent to trade gossip about it.
12-29-2017 , 07:09 AM
Meanwhile new work on the case indicates the blood evidence is flawed:

Prosecutors said Avery fatally shot Teresa Halbach, burned her body and then drove her RAV4 to a corner of the yard, leaving his blood in multiple places inside the vehicle.

But the new experiments undermine those claims, Zellner said.

For one thing, flakes of blood were found on top of the driver side’s carpet floor. But in their experiment, Zellner and James hypothesized it could not have been Avery’s because fresh blood would have soaked into the carpet instead of sitting as flakes on top of the fibers.

To prove this, they transferred two samples of blood from Avery’s sink to the RAV4, first a sample of blood that had been allowed to dry on the rim of Avery’s sink and then a sample of fresh blood from the sink.

The liquid blood soaked into the car’s carpet. The dried blood remained on top of it, casting doubt on the prosecutors’ claim that Avery bled directly from a cut finger into the car.

“The bloodstains belonging to Mr. Avery are consistent with an explanation other than Mr. Avery being in the RAV4 and depositing his blood in those locations with his actively bleeding cut finger,” James wrote in an affidavit filed with the court.

http://www.newsweek.com/steven-avery...-making-762639
12-29-2017 , 07:17 AM
Kathleen Zellner
‏ @ZellnerLaw
13 hours ago

No doubt: Steven Avery’s blood was planted in Rav-4. The State’s theory cannot be duplicated.
#MakingaMurderer #UnravelingtheFiction
01-22-2018 , 02:37 AM
still going huh
01-22-2018 , 03:27 AM
We all moved on to american vandals and want to know who draw thoses dicks.
02-24-2018 , 12:11 PM
The guy who made Murder in the Park is making a new documentary that will counter the deceptive advocacy piece Making a Murderer. Should be interesting!

Quote:
“When Making A Murderer was produced, many on the law enforcement side of the story could not, or would not, participate in the series, which resulted in a one-sided analysis of the case,” Rech said. “This docuseries will examine the case and the allegations of police wrongdoing from a broader perspective. It will also share with viewers the traumatic effects of being found guilty and vilified in the court of public opinion.”

Rech and Hale are no strangers to wrongful conviction cases. Their first film, IFC Films/Sundance Selects’ A Murder in the Park (2014), presented evidence that led to the release of Alstory Simon, an innocent man wrongfully convicted and imprisoned for a 1982 double homicide in Chicago.

http://deadline.com/2018/02/convicti...ch-1202298462/

http://www.slashfilm.com/making-a-murderer-sequel/

http://www.cleveland.com/tipoff/inde..._filmmake.html

http://ew.com/tv/2018/02/22/new-docu...ng-a-murderer/
02-27-2018 , 03:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
The guy who made Murder in the Park is making a new documentary that will counter the deceptive advocacy piece Making a Murderer.

“When Making A Murderer was produced, many on the law enforcement side of the story could not, or would not, participate in the series, which resulted in a one-sided analysis of the case,”
Curious if this new doc will also be one-sided which ironically is what they are trying to pokes holes at MAM for being.
03-01-2018 , 11:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by housenuts Making a Murderer
Curious if this new doc will also be one-sided which ironically is what they are trying to pokes holes at MAM for being.
“When Making A Murderer was produced, many on the law enforcement side of the story could not, or would not, participate in the series, which resulted in a one-sided analysis of the case...”

If the criticism of MaM is that it was 'one sided' because prosecutors and police refused to participate, then this new doc must include equal time with Zellner and Drizin?
03-02-2018 , 09:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by housenuts Making a Murderer
Curious if this new doc will also be one-sided which ironically is what they are trying to pokes holes at MAM for being.
They've already stated they will be reaching out to Buting, Strang, Zellner, etc. for interviews (though I doubt Strang and those shysters participate).

Regardless, even if you think the new doc is one-sided, isn't it worth it to see the "other side" - a side that (I'm hoping):
  • doesn't portray the hole in the vial as a "red letter day", but rather explains the hole in the vial is normal and the package entries are documented (last opened by Steven's previous lawyers, in fact);

  • doesn't edit in different answers which were never given to questions to make people look more suspicious, but rather shows the actual unedited footage;

  • doesn't find the one cousin who claims, "The people that were close to Steve knew he was harmless. He was always happy, happy, happy.Always laughing. Always wanted to make other people laugh.", but rather shows that pretty much his entire family believes he was (at least) capable of the murder;

  • doesn't villainize women who speak out against abuse and try to discredit them, as Making a Murderer did with Sandra and Lori, but rather hears their stories and covers the numerous documented (and often well-corroborated) allegations of rape, domestic abuse, death threats, etc.


Perhaps this side might be better?
03-11-2018 , 03:06 AM
Just watched the show.

Cliffs on thread consensus for both verdicts, and alternate theory of how Teresa died if not for Steven and Brendan?


Im on the fence about Steven Avery, but feel quite strongly Brendan wasn't involved.
03-11-2018 , 06:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bighurt52235 Making a Murderer
Just watched the show.

Cliffs on thread consensus for both verdicts, and alternate theory of how Teresa died if not for Steven and Brendan?


Im on the fence about Steven Avery, but feel quite strongly Brendan wasn't involved.
There's no thread consensus.

Some think the investigation and subsequent trials were deeply flawed.

Others think law enforcement did nothing wrong (or perhaps only minor insignificant errors).

If Steven Avery is in fact innocent, then the murder is unsolved.
03-11-2018 , 07:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bighurt52235 Making a Murderer


Im on the fence about Steven Avery, but feel quite strongly Brendan wasn't involved.
owerwhelming majority thinks this, but a couple of posters make it seem otherwise.



1 and 3 in particular
03-11-2018 , 08:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Stuff Making a Murderer
owerwhelming majority thinks this, but a couple of posters make it seem otherwise.



1 and 3 in particular
I need to up my game - not even in the top three?

03-11-2018 , 10:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bighurt52235 Making a Murderer
Just watched the show.

Cliffs on thread consensus for both verdicts, and alternate theory of how Teresa died if not for Steven and Brendan?
In two years, no credible alternate theory has been presented.


Quote:
Im on the fence about Steven Avery, but feel quite strongly Brendan wasn't involved.
That's the reaction Making a Murderer seeks to elicit from its viewers - "I think it's possible Steven Avery may have done it, but I know for sure that the investigation and trials were corrupt and that Brendan is innocent!"

That's how I felt after first watching, but was skeptical that we weren't being presented with an accurate portrayal. Spoiler Alert: We weren't.

Some of the many things to clear up for a new viewer:

Steven Avery was a lot worse of a person than the show portrayed him as. He physically abused his ex-wife, he physically abused Jodi, and he threatened to kill them both. His ex-wife's friend told police he raped her in 1983, and his teenage relative told police he raped her in 2004. There's more, but I'll stop there.


The hole in the vial is supposed to be there - it is not evidence of someone stealing blood. Furthermore, the package the vial had last been opened (and scotch taped shut) by Steven's previous lawyers. There is no evidence at all that it was broken into.

The EDTA test was scientifically valid and conclusively showed that the blood did not come from the vial.


The bullet with TH's DNA on it was conclusively linked to the gun in Steven's possession.

No defense expert ever even refuted Culhane's DNA analysis of the bullet.


The key was not found on the 6th or 7th search, it was found on the 2nd search after the 1st was cut short due to weather. There were 6 or 7 "entries", but all but 2 of those were for specific tasks such as retrieving the computer or vacuum.


Colborn and Lenk were not responsible in any way for Steven's previous wrongful conviction and had no fear of being sued. Colborn's only involvement was transferring a misplaced phone call to the detective agency when he was working in the county jail. Lenk's only involvement was that Colborn mentioned this incident to him in 2003, and Lenk decided to go with Colborn to inform the sheriff. This is what they were deposed about.

They were not barred from the investigation and were asked to help out where they did. The head of the investigation even testified that knowing Lenk's and Colborn's involvement in depositions would not change his decisions to include them in the investigation.


The missing voicemails? They get deleted automatically after 2 weeks as per Cingular's policy at the time. After discussing later with Kratz and the judge, Buting admitted he was wrong about that.


No human bones, let alone Teresa's bones, were found anywhere except for Steven's burnpit and the burn barrel. All of the tiniest pieces of remains were found in Steven's pit, and only a few larger bone fragments were found in the barrel, leading the forensic anthropologist to state she believed the body was burnt in the pit and some bones were later moved into the barrel.

The arson investigator and another forensic investigator found Teresa's bones intertwined in the steel tire wires that were used in the fire on Halloween night.


Steven Avery had a large bonfire that night, including several tires and a van seat, a fire coincidentally big enough to destroy a human body (as was testified).

For at least a couple weeks, Steven Avery denied having that fire (or any fire at any point after TH had arrived), even before knowing bones were found in the pit. It wasn't until weeks later and nearly a dozen witnesses came forward that Steven finally admitted to having the fire with Brendan.


Even ignoring his multiple confessions entirely, it's still clear to me that Brendan was involved. Brendan ultimately testified at his trial to helping Steven create a large bonfire and also cleaning an approximately 3x3ft area where there was a blood-like substance in his garage with bleach, paint thinner, and gasoline during their bonfire. Bleach stains were found on the jeans he said he was wearing that night.

Brendan also claimed he initially lied about having the fire that night, testifying he did so "because I'm just like my family, I don't like cops". In fact, Brendan was lying to investigators from his very first interview on November 6th (where he first claimed he never saw Teresa, then when told the bus driver saw her, he claimed he saw her too from his window driving away).


If Steven killed Teresa (and there is no question in my mind that he did), then the extent of Brendan's involvement and knowledge is up for debate, but it'd be foolish to think he wasn't involved at all.


Let's go back to your initial question:

Quote:
alternate theory of how Teresa died if not for Steven and Brendan?
Do you have an alternate theory that you find reasonable? Or is the only reasonable theory that Steven murdered Teresa?
03-11-2018 , 11:08 PM
Interesting, thanks for that.


I couldnt think of any other theories, which was the main reason why I was on the fence instead of going straight up not guilty.

It was curious to me the defense wasn't offering up theories as to how she got there.

I still don't understand the lack of blood while having her throat slit on the bed.
03-12-2018 , 01:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bighurt52235 Making a Murderer
Interesting, thanks for that.


I couldnt think of any other theories, which was the main reason why I was on the fence instead of going straight up not guilty.

It was curious to me the defense wasn't offering up theories as to how she got there.

I still don't understand the lack of blood while having her throat slit on the bed.
There is no evidence of her throat being slit on the bed (or even being in the room) besides Brendan's confessions. Therefore, if one doesn't believe Brendan's confessions, there's no reason to believe the theory that they slit her throat on the bed.

Furthermore, as Brendan's confessions were the only evidence of the events inside the trailer and his confessions were not used in Steven's trial, the state never claimed anything happened to Teresa inside Steven's trailer in Steven's trial. There is such an overwhelming amount of evidence proving Steven's guilt that one does not need to believe Brendan's confessions at all in order to find Steven guilty, as seen at Steven's trial.


There is no question that Brendan's statements were often contradictory, although that doesn't necessarily mean his confessions were completely false. Indeed, some of the stuff he confessed to were supported by evidence and/or were testified to at trial. I believe that, even when excluding his confessions entirely, there's certainly enough evidence to prove he was involved to some degree in the crime.
03-15-2018 , 01:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bighurt52235 Making a Murderer
Interesting, thanks for that.


I couldnt think of any other theories, which was the main reason why I was on the fence instead of going straight up not guilty.

It was curious to me the defense wasn't offering up theories as to how she got there.

I still don't understand the lack of blood while having her throat slit on the bed.
You are correct - in fact there is zero evidence Teresa was ever in that room.

The only evidence we have for how Teresa may have died is the blood spatter on the back door of her RAV4. It indicates she was struck with a blunt object.

This doesn't fit any of the LE theories about the crime.

The evidence we would expect, if the police theory was true, is evidence Teresa was attacked in the trailer or in the garage. None found.

In my view, in the absence of compelling evidence that the police theory is true I can reject such assertions. No need to field any theory of my own - the same way I don't have to have my own theory about who Jack the Ripper is to reject a theory that it was Prince Albert.
03-15-2018 , 02:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz

The guy who made Murder in the Park is making a new documentary...
Quote:
Originally Posted by housenuts Making a Murderer
Curious if this new doc will also be one-sided which ironically is what they are trying to pokes holes at MAM for being.
Interesting: the producers are asking the public for suggested questions to use during interviews.

http://www.transitionstudios.com/submit-a-question.html
03-18-2018 , 12:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
You are correct - in fact there is zero evidence Teresa was ever in that room.

The only evidence we have for how Teresa may have died is the blood spatter on the back door of her RAV4. It indicates she was struck with a blunt object.

This doesn't fit any of the LE theories about the crime.

The evidence we would expect, if the police theory was true, is evidence Teresa was attacked in the trailer or in the garage. None found.
This is completely false. We have evidence of at least two gunshot wounds through the skull, with several forensic experts (including the defense's expert) concluding she was shot in the head, and we have a bullet fired from Steven's gun with Teresa's DNA on it found in the garage.

We also have evidence that Steven and Brendan cleaned up a substance that Brendan testified "looked like blood" in an area of the garage on the same night that Teresa went missing.

We also have evidence that Teresa's body was burnt in Steven's fire pit, and evidence that Steven and Brendan had a massive fire on the night she went missing.

It's completely delusional to ignore all this evidence of how Teresa was murdered, but I understand why you do so.


Quote:
In my view, in the absence of compelling evidence that the police theory is true I can reject such assertions. No need to field any theory of my own - the same way I don't have to have my own theory about who Jack the Ripper is to reject a theory that it was Prince Albert.
The difference is simple. For Prince Albert to be innocent, there are hundreds of reasonable scenarios of someone else committing the crime since there is no evidence tying him to the crime and thus no evidence that must be explained away. For instance, I can say Joe Schmoe who lived down the street was the murderer, and that's completely plausible seeing as there's no strong evidence tying Prince Albert or anyone else to the crime.


For Steven Avery to be innocent and someone else to be the killer, there is tons of evidence of Steven's guilt that must first be explained away, such as his blood all over Teresa's Rav4 and the details I shared above.

The simple fact is that there is no reasonable scenario where the facts incriminating Steven are acknowledged and Steven is still innocent (something the jury correctly understood), and attempting to provide one is a fool's errand.

Nowhere is this fact more apparent than in Zellner's post-conviction motion where she lays out a half-baked scenario that involves (among other ludicrous events): Teresa's friend driving Teresa's Rav4 to Steven Avery's salvage yard, breaking into Steven's home where he finds freshly spilt blood in the sink, and using the pipette he conveniently had on him to plant it in Teresa's Rav4. (Of course this whole scenario was ludicrous and completely unsupported by any evidence, thus Zellner quickly abandoned the whole thing after working on it for over a year.)


This is why many Avery advocates choose to avoid discussions revolving around the facts of the case altogether and instead spout platitudes about the justice system a la Dean Strang.

Meanwhile, other advocates such as yourself and Zellner try to live in a world of "alternate facts" and just end up looking completely foolish.

      
m