Some people just dig killers and want them to get off. It often relates to a personal problem with perceived authority, and often relates to a racial, social or psycho-sexual problem with the victim or victims, and either way relates to a clan identification with the perpetrator or perpetrators and a sadic vicarious enjoyment of the crime. (As seen in 'holocaust denial', whose advocates employ the exact same, nitpicky, fantastical, doubt-the-evidence-of-your-own-eyes methods. The weird couple who produced Making A Murderer really should get into holocaust denial. There's one born every minute, so there's money to be made.)

No point in the courtroom, apparently.

Contaminate samples in a forensic test? Just fill out a form (even if your supervisor doesn't sign off on it).

Submit an exhibit which shows gross differences between the bullet fragment and a bullet from the rifle, and it's all good (even if it wasn't peer reviewed).

Voodoo science is always acceptable if your only goal is to convict a defendant rather than discover the truth.

The guilter mindset seems to be 'convict at all costs'.

Voodoo science? You mean like Brain fingerprinting and cellphone tower data?

No, like the things I referenced in my post.

I recall Culahane helped convict Avery in the rape frameup using now debunked 'hair matching'.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...ses-180955070/

People in the 60s thought smoking was healthy for you, your point?

Point being that real science values things like proper documentation, uncontaminated samples, and peer review (unlike prosecution when determined to convict Steven Avery no matter what).

Science doesn't necessitate those parameters. Besides, that has nothing to do with what you said. The method used in the rape case was largely an accepted method in the 80s. Its not as if sherry was just grasping at straws.

This is unlike brain fingerprinting and cell phone tower data which is not admissible in many courts. Despite Zellner wanting to use them now.

No protocols were violated & nobody cares about your endless rehashing.

Seems to me there's several of those types itt. Those who automatically label the prosecution "lowlifes" even in other cases, where no evidence of corruption exists. Those who seem to have a grudge against LE in general hence the snide untrue comments re personal porn collections. Those who seem to delight tormenting the victim's family by alleging that Teresa was murdered by her own brother & a police officer.
Those who have no qualms dragging innocent people's names through the mud, accusing several other people from one week to the next with much lower burden of proof standards than they have for the convicted murderers & also have no qualms in flat out lying by asserting that one of the accused innocents was the last person to see Teresa alive.

Sadistic vicarious enjoyment of the crime sums it up quite well as I can't imagine any other reason to engage in such callous morally barren behaviour.
Those who genuinely feel that they're campaigning against a miscarriage of justice simply don't engage in such nasty & irrational behaviour. It's not their style.
Seems there are a lot of people itt who deep down are simply nasty pieces of work, despite their protestations that they're simply concerned over a miscarriage of justice. And they're fooling nobody familiar with the Teresa Halbach case, I can most assuredly tell them, despite their lies, inconsistency & callous attacks. Groupies gonna group.

A) There was no "voodoo science" used in the Teresa Halbach case, please cite where the court threw out the evidence on account of it being due to "voodoo science" or else stop making stuff up & stop conflating your opinion with the facts.

B) There is no such word as "guilter", umpteen times you've been asked, invited & outright challenged to provide a definition, umpteen times you've shown yourself unwilling/unable to do so which is one of the umpteen reasons you're considered a below par troll as well as an actual & decidedly addled cultist who uses non existent made up words to label those apparently who agree with court verdicts after studying the totality of evidence against the lowlife former defendants you & your fellow cultists are shilling for, albeit shilling for to absolutely no avail to anyone normal.

C) Truth was discovered & established by multiple courts. It's why we have criminal trials btw.

D) Anyone with with a modicum of common sense is simultaneously in stitches & choking on the irony at your mention of "voodoo science" considering you endorse a completely unethical charlatan who peddles actual voodoo science such as "brain fingerprinting" (srsly wtf?) in her utterly pathetic excuse for a brief.

Now, I reckon I could go all the way to Z here considering your seriously impressive list of flaws but I reckon we're good with merely going to D.

Anyway suffice to say, you're still a murderer groupie, a troll, an anti-authoritarian who clearly dislikes cops & prosecution, for reasons which at this stage I suspect are probably...rather contextual actually, put it that way & a conspiraloon tin foil hat wearing headcase. And you have miserably failed to make a case for either innocence or police corruption or wrongful conviction to anyone except your fellow murderer groupies whose opinions are irrelevant to anyone sane anyway. You also failed miserably to provide evidence Avery was framed for rape which is yet another reason still you're considered an addled troll. Your fellow victim bashing loons have also failed miserably to do anything except make ordinary sane normal people back away slowly from them. You people are an absolutely pathetic pack of shrill irrational callous weirdos. And again you're fooling nobody.

Justice has been upheld for Teresa & her family. Your murderers are going nowhere. Deal with it & move on.

Another good example of 'junk science' is when trolls post their long-winded psychological profiles of posters with whom they are in disagreement.

Fortunately, I don't think anyone with an IQ above 70 will take the inexpert opinions of corpus vile and 57 On Red seriously.

Only one trolling here is you. And it's still sub par & you're still a murderer groupie creep who still isn't fooling anyone.

Zellner rejected yet again.

https://eu.postcrescent.com/story/ne...al/1221406002/

Evidence not withheld from defence

https://www.wbay.com/content/news/Ju...492662681.html

& Zellner rebuked for good measure

Judge Sutkiewicz decision in full:

https://criminaljusticereformjournal...018/09/9-6.pdf

New episodes in a couple of weeks. Can’t wait for the Hot Takes from the Wisconsin Criminal Justice System Defense League.

You beat me to it. lol
Here is some more info on it.


‘Making a Murderer': Season 2 of Netflix’s True-Crime Series to Premiere Next Month
The highly-anticipated second season of its true-crime doc “Making a Murderer” will premiere Oct. 19, Netflix announced Tuesday.

Per Netflix, the second season will see filmmakers Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos return to Wisconsin and follow the post-conviction process for Steve Avery and his co-defendant and nephew, Brendan Dassey. Earlier this month, Avery was denied a new trial for the second time by Sheboygan County Circuit Court judge Angela Sutkiewicz.

“Part 2” will introduce Kathleen Zellner, Avery’s hard-charging post-conviction lawyer, in her fight to prove that Avery was wrongly convicted and to win his freedom. Ricciardi and Demos follow Zellner, who has righted more wrongful convictions than any private attorney in America, as she works the case and uncovers unexpected evidence about what may have happened to Teresa Halbach and about how and why the jury convicted Steven of her murder.

https://www.imdb.com/news/ni62220827?ref_=nws_sb_nwc_li

So assume all of this is a year old and will provide nothing new

I cannot wait to see how they spin this lol.

I think the majority of people who watched season 1 didn't keep up with the case, at least not beyond the things that made it to mainstream media. For all of them, lots of the developments will be new.

This is the scary thing about it all, these filmmakers are great story tellers. I feel so bad for the Halbachs.

^^This.^^

For a few thousand people who've been keeping tabs on the case daily there might not have many surprises, but for millions of others it will catch them up.

https://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwtv/...DERER-20180926

has anyone seen this? Theres a doc coming out that will tell a more neutral side to the avery case. Its made by the same guy that made Murder in the Park. Which was a very good documentary about a guilty man who gets exonerated and an innocent man who takes his place in prison.

"Rech will work with District Attorney Ken Kratz, Lead Investigator Tom Fassbender, and other major players in State v. Avery on the docuseries."

Yep, neutral.

I don't know where you read that but I have no problem with him interviewing the state and DA at the time and remaining neutral. Neutral doesn't mean you need to remain oblivious to the fact that this bastard is guilty.

LOL have not checked into this thread in nearly a year... can't believe it's still going around in the same circles.

Ah well Zellner will probably get some more good publicity out of Season 2, anyway. Doesn't bother me as long as the rapist/killers continue to rot in jail. Which thankfully given the mountains of evidence they almost certainly will.

"It will also share with viewers the traumatic effects of being found guilty and vilified in the court of public opinion."

Sounds like Shawn Rech could be sympathetic to how Brendan Dassey and Steven Avery were treated.