Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > > >

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-14-2019, 06:27 PM   #13476
smacc25
veteran
 
smacc25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: The Green Baize
Posts: 2,969
Re: Making a Murderer

Quote:
Originally Posted by the pleasure View Post
I got 2 ep s into season 2 and found it super boring after I felt the first season, een with its faults, was close to amazing.

do I pick it back up or is it the same dull no new revelations? im amazed they coudl stretch it into 8 eps wtf
Yeah bro.. Its not the 1st season for sure, but it does pick up with the science... Its worth watching just for the Blood spatter expert's.
smacc25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2019, 07:57 AM   #13477
corpus vile
veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,362
Re: Making a Murderer

Quote:
Originally Posted by smacc25 View Post
Or how another murder case went down in another country....
Thanks for the quote I have no need to rehash what the courts already covered, already pointed out several times what the onus is on you supporters to provide. Btw is Loudz referring to Eisenberg? He seems a bit vague in his ramblings is all. Only failures here are you supporters reduced to endless rehashing. None of you have put any dent in the prosecution's convictions, nor will you any time soon or Avery's clown lawyer.
corpus vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2019, 09:54 PM   #13478
proudfootz
old hand
 
proudfootz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Left Coast US of A
Posts: 1,906
Re: Making a Murderer

Zellner explains the most recent findings about bad faith from the Staye more interested in covering their asses than justice for Teresa Halbach.

On December 14th, 2018, Zellner filed a motion for new DNA testing on all the “human” and “suspected human” quarry bones, including the pelvic bone fragments. (The Court of Appeals denied her request to remand the case, but indicated the testing was something she could request in the future, after they had ruled on issues already under appeal.) Zellner’s December motion, and its disclosure about the three piles of quarry bones, caught the eye of a third party, who provided Zellner with a copy of the previously undisclosed 2011 police report. Zellner’s evidence control ledgers were from 2007, so she filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the most recent versions, which confirmed that all of the property numbers listed on the police report had indeed been checked out on that date. It also indicated that many of the “human” and “suspected human” bones recovered from the quarry piles had never been returned, confirming that they were among the bones that had been released to the Halbach family.

“It isn’t just the pelvic bone, there’s about 10 bones that were recovered from the quarry,” Zellner tells Rolling Stone. “By giving them [to the Halbach family] … they have just confirmed they believe those bones are human. It’s a very sneaky way to get evidence destroyed. It seems very deliberate that the thinking was, ‘We need to get rid of those bones, but we can’t just go in and cremate them ourselves.’”

At first, Zellner believed that the pelvic bones fragments must still be in evidence, since Fallon and Gahn had agreed to the microscopic examination.

“Then I started thinking, why didn’t the state tell [the court] in December, when I asked to test those bones, ‘There are no bones to test’?” Zellner says. “I start worrying that the pelvic bones have been given back too, even though that’s what we kept talking about testing and they were telling me they had it. But I can’t trust them about anything because they haven’t disclosed to the court or anyone that they gave all the bones to the Halbachs.”

Upon closer review of the evidence control ledgers, Zellner found a notation indicating that the pelvic bone fragments had been deemed “only human,” and they too had been removed from evidence control in 2011 and were never returned.

Zellner has submitted to the court, and Rolling Stone has reviewed, more than a dozen exhibits which corroborate these claims.


https://www.rollingstone.com/culture...BOuEJ1E_x31Zwo
proudfootz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2019, 12:38 AM   #13479
smacc25
veteran
 
smacc25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: The Green Baize
Posts: 2,969
Re: Making a Murderer

To no-one's surprise "Many Bones" were given back to the Halbach family.


smacc25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2019, 08:42 AM   #13480
housenuts
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
housenuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Come With Me If You Want To Lift
Posts: 34,062
Re: Making a Murderer

Not sure I see the difference between numerous and many
housenuts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2019, 03:35 AM   #13481
White Stuff
grinder
 
White Stuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: this just seems nuts to me
Posts: 511
Re: Making a Murderer

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...-idUSKCN1QD0RQ
White Stuff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2019, 09:00 AM   #13482
proudfootz
old hand
 
proudfootz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Left Coast US of A
Posts: 1,906
Re: Making a Murderer

Now this...

Avery is currently in prison for the murder of Teresa Halbach, who he claims he did not kill. He was legally allowed future DNA testing when resources become available. Zellner filed a motion to have the bones tested, as she explained they could help to exonerate him based on their location, which would negate the prosecution’s former theory. She received a response saying the bones had been returned to Halbach’s family.

Zellner called this a Youngblood vs. Arizona violation in conversation with Newsweek. She later explained that it could grant him “relief” but not a full exoneration, meaning because the bones, as evidence, were destroyed, Avery could be granted a new trial. “Those reports about Mr. Avery being released are not accurate,” Zellner told Metro, a UK publication. “We do believe our current motion re the State’s disposal of the bones is one of the most significant developments in the Avery case.”

She also spoke of how a second trial would fare for Avery. “‘If the court does grant relief either it will order an evidentiary hearing or a new trial but not a release,” Zellner explained. “What will lead to Mr. Avery’s release is a new trial and acquittal because we will be able to refute all of the State’s case with the new evidence we have developed over the last 3 years. Mr. Avery is innocent and will not be convicted a second time.”


https://www.newsweek.com/what-comes-...uld-be-1341666
proudfootz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2019, 06:37 PM   #13483
proudfootz
old hand
 
proudfootz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Left Coast US of A
Posts: 1,906
Re: Making a Murderer

Court of Appeals grants stay and remand requested by Zellner.

https://imgur.com/a/ZHOlj3J

In full.
proudfootz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2019, 06:55 PM   #13484
proudfootz
old hand
 
proudfootz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Left Coast US of A
Posts: 1,906
Re: Making a Murderer



Not too shabby for someone supposedly dropping Steven Avery...
proudfootz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2019, 10:08 PM   #13485
smacc25
veteran
 
smacc25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: The Green Baize
Posts: 2,969
Re: Making a Murderer

Kathleen Zellner @ZellnerLaw 4m4 minutes ago We are going to have an extraordinary number of constitutional violations when we are done. The COA is letting us create an avalanche of evidence in this record. Higher courts rule. #TruthWins @michellemalkin @EFMoriarty #MakingaMurderer #WorkWithKZ

This news was enough to take away those Monday blues..... ��
smacc25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2019, 10:21 PM   #13486
smacc25
veteran
 
smacc25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: The Green Baize
Posts: 2,969
Re: Making a Murderer

Cross Post from TTM.......

JLWhitaker • 3h
It’s worth mentioning that in the stay and remand, the CoA have mentioned the overlap between old issues raised and new issues, basically telling KZ to get her **** together and launch everything as one appeal now. That could make things very interesting.

Which was a slap at the state wanting to separate everything to try and get a dismissal, I thought. COA is tired of the state's game of 'this is delaying things, take it up later' argument, which worked the first time, but didn't the second, which is what people were afraid of, that the COA wouldn't remand. Now this result from circuit will fold into the COA decision later if necessary (probably will be).

I just went to the other sub to see what was being said about this decision. Some there don't seem to understand that the more problems with this case, the better for an appeal to be granted, the verdict overturned, and the case sent back to start over. If there were only one item to appeal, it's easy(easier) for a COA to say, nope, not enough to overturn, verdict stands. But, in my opinion, if there are many grounds for appeal, it's much harder for COA to ignore. Not everything may have the same priority, but the entirety is hard to ignore (like AngieS did).

It is good news. If AngieS rejects an outright breach of their own laws, written by actual principles in this case, FFS!, she is showing she is not fit for the bench, and Evers should find a way to sack her.
smacc25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2019, 07:12 AM   #13487
proudfootz
old hand
 
proudfootz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Left Coast US of A
Posts: 1,906
Re: Making a Murderer

Interview with Steven Avery's lawyer about recent Court of Appeals decision:

1. Explain for people the significance of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals ruling. Why is this considered a major victory for Steven Avery?

Zellner response: The Wisconsin Court of Appeals has granted Zellner's motion to add an additional claim against the State for destruction of evidence which could result in Avery’s conviction being thrown out. There are only 2 other cases in Wisconsin that have allowed this. The State adamantly fought this motion but lost. Allowing Avery to include the destruction of evidence claim all but guarantees the reversal of his conviction for the murder of Teresa Halbach.

2. What can people expect to happen in Steven's case over the next 60 to 90 days?

Zellner response: In the next 60 days the circuit court will rule on whether Mr. Avery’s conviction should be reversed. The judge, Angela Sutkiewicz, should recuse herself from the case since she has a blatant conflict of interest. She has presided over the Halbach wrongful death case and Avery’s post-conviction case. This is totally improper and she should recuse herself as Judge (Willis) did. If she will not Avery fully expects her to rule against him as she has on every issue to date. She should be holding an evidentiary hearing but it is doubtful she will. The appellate court will reverse her for all of her blatant errors.

3. Explain the significance of the bones being given to the Halbachs. Could this be the biggest Brady Violation you have uncovered so far?

Zellner response: The State destroyed vital material evidence by giving Ms. Halbach’s bones back to her family in 2011. The State was trying to conceal that the real crime scene was in the quarry not on Steven’s property . The State lied to the jury about where the crime occurred. This violates the Wisconsin state law which mandates the preservation of biological evidence until Avery serves his life sentence. This also violated federal constitutional law. The controlling case is Youngblood vs. Arizona which prohibits the State from acting in bad faith and destroying material evidence in a case.

4. What is realistic in terms of courtroom events at this point? Do you envision being at the Manitowoc County Courthouse inside a regular courtroom, to make your arguments and calling witnesses in the coming months?

Zellner response: The appellate court clearly expects an evidentiary courtroom hearing to be held where everyone who represented the prosecution and police involved in the destruction of the bones would be cross-examined including Kratz, Fallon, Gahn, Weigert, Hawkins and Dr. Eisenberg. A representative of the Halbach family would have to testify about what they did with the bones.

5. Do you think it's possible that the state of Wisconsin will decide it's best to work with you and that Steven's murder conviction will be vacated during 2019?

Zellner response: It is unlikely the State will cooperate with Avery but they may be forced to do testing of any remaining quarry bone fragments to prevent a reversal of Avery’s conviction but if this is done and the quarry bones are Halbach’s the case will be reversed because the State misrepresented to the jury where the crime took place. It destroys the State’s theory that the murderer had to be Avery because the crime occurred exclusively on his property—in his garage and burn-pit.




https://patch.com/wisconsin/across-w...mpression=true
proudfootz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2019, 12:54 PM   #13488
smacc25
veteran
 
smacc25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: The Green Baize
Posts: 2,969
Re: Making a Murderer

Thanks too Stefanclimbrunner on TTM.



It is worth taking a look again at the topic of the destroyed bone evidence, and the way in which the circuit court by all means should address and evaluate it. Which not necessarily means that judge AS will argue along those lines, let alone think along them.

First let’s take look at what the allegedly broken statute is actually saying: https://law.justia.com/codes/wiscons...ction-968.205/

It is stated in sub-section b): “(b) Except as provided in par. (c), if physical evidence that is in the possession of the laboratories includes any biological material that was collected in connection with a criminal investigation that resulted in a criminal conviction, a delinquency adjudication, or commitment under s. 971.17 or 980.06 *and the biological material is from a victim of the offense that was the subject of the criminal investigation OR may reasonably be used to incriminate or exculpate any person for the offense*, the laboratories shall preserve the physical evidence until every person in custody as a result of the conviction, adjudication, or commitment has reached his or her discharge date.”

Meaning: For the state to be obliged to preserve biological evidence, one of two things must be given. The material must either stem from the victim OR have a reasonable evidentiary value (incriminate OR exculpate ANY person). The latter applies here and the prosecution itself was obviously convinced of the former.

Additionally, because of the special criteria which the state of Wisconsin prescribed in another statute, (https://law.justia.com/codes/wiscons...ction-968.205/), the state basically defined every form of DNA evidence as potentially incriminatory or exculpatory in nature.

The concrete exculpatory value of the bone evidence here results from the fact, that the verdict against SA is based in the most fundamental way on the body (parts) being found on his property – there, and only there; furthermore, that the victim drove to the Avery Salvage Yard yet never left again. KK at trial explicitly denied, many times, that any part of the crime did take place or even could have taken place anywhere outside the salvage yard; LE decidedly denied that the bones in Avery’s burn pit ever were or even could have been moved.

KK several times strongly referred to body parts being found only on Avery’s property would make “the whole case”. That circumstance, if true, would point to one perpetrator and one only: SA. Claiming the entire murder having taken place on the salvage yard was the fundamental basis of the case and the verdict against SA, and it also was that claim by which KK brought the jury to blatantly ignore, that the garage and the trailer are to be ruled out as actual crime scenes.

Taking into consideration the bones from the county pit had been found around the same time as TH’s remains, in a geographically related area and had been classified as human, female, with cut marks and, since the remains on SA’s nearby property were missing around 60% of bone material, it is highly logical to assume a connection.

If those bones were TH’s (and, as we will see, legally that is enough), then not only a completely new, largely unknown, version of the murder emerges, a version opening up the scenario to other possible perpetrators than SA, but it defines another , quite telling, chronology of events, too.

People tend to forget, that the bones from the county pit had cut marks on them, according to LE consistent with a hacksaw-sized blade, yet the smaller parts found in SA’s burn pit had NONE. That implies that, if the bones were to be from one and the same body, then this body would have to have been dismembered at the county pit BEFORE being burned, not the other way round – and this places the murder outside the Avery Salvage Yard. And that not only leaves ample room for a killer other than SA, but also leads to the logical problem, why, in all the world, SA would plant the bones afterwards behind his own house, and the answer to that problem leads naturally to a perpetrator who is not SA and who intentionally planted the bones there.

Moreover: Because the prosecution did not simply destroy the bone evidence in question, but returned it to TH’s family for burial, therefore expressing that they were certain that those bones indeed were TH’s (conflicting with the prosecutions own theory at trial), they inadvertently admitted that these bones were relevant for this case. Therefore the prosecution must have assumed that they were of evidentiary value. Therefore the prosecution must have been fully aware, that those bones were forbidden to be released under 968.205(2).

Another strong indicator for the prosecution’s awareness is, that in 2017 the human pelvis (Item 8675), one of the bones found in the county pit and, as we now know, given to TH’s family as well, was about to be re-examined by LE together with the expert of the defense – to which both the prosecution and the court agreed, precisely because all parties anticipated the examination might have evidentiary value. That examination, as we all know, never took place anymore after AS’s negative verdict.

The demands for evidentiary value under 968.205(2) are clearly fulfilled. The prosecution knew, that the bone material could have been reasonably used to “incriminate or exculpate any person for the crime”

The given law also defines strictly under which circumstances DNA evidence, collected during an investigation, may be released at all. ALL of those criteria must be met, especially this one:

(under 968.205(3)(a)) `(a) The law enforcement agency *sends a notice of its intent to destroy the evidence to all persons who remain in custody as a result of the criminal conviction, delinquency adjudication, or commitment, **and to either the attorney of record for each person in custody or the state public defender.*

This requirement, which would have allowed the legal release of the bones, has been violated too. Therefore one cannot argue, that the release of those bones was not in violation of statute 968.205, since not only was a) that bone material according to the cited statute not allowed to be released in the first place, but the requirements under which b) DNA material, which does not fall under aforementioned criteria, could have been released, have also been violated.

If that breaking of the law is a violation of the rights of the defendant and must lead to a legal remedy, is to be determined by the Wisconsin courts by two different tests, both originating from supreme court decisions – the Trombotta test and the Youngblood test.

To see how the courts decide which of those tests must be applied, let’s take a look at an explanation the court gave in United States v. Bohl:

“We first must determine whether Trombetta or Youngblood governs our analysis of Bell and Bohl's due process challenge. This inquiry turns on the import of the destroyed materials. To invoke Trombetta, a defendant must demonstrate that the government destroyed evidence possessing an "apparent" exculpatory value. […] However, to trigger the Youngblood test, all that need be shown is that the government destroyed "potentially useful evidence." […] . The Court in Youngblood defined "potentially useful evidence" as evidence of which "no more can be said than that it could have been subjected to tests, the results of which MIGHT HAVE exonerated the defendant." Because our review of the record concludes that the tower legs offered only potentially useful evidence for Bell and Bohl's defense, we apply the rule of Youngblood rather than Trombetta.”

In our case the Youngblood test applies (See more: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cg...=law_lawreview), and it is Youngblood that KZ raised. After all, the bones from the county ARE evidence of which "no more can be said than that they could have been subjected to tests, the results of which MIGHT HAVE exonerated the defendant."

The Youngblood test (based on the decision Youngblood v. Arizona) is a two-step test, as we can see, for example, via its use by the appeals court in the decision State v. Parker:

A defendant's due process rights are violated by the destruction of evidence (1) if the evidence destroyed was "apparently exculpatory" and of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonable means; *OR (2) if the evidence was POTENTIALLY EXCULPATORY AND was destroyed in BAD FAITH.*"

The potentially exculpatory nature of the destroyed bone evidence has been argued at length above. The only question left to answer is, if the destruction of the evidence took place in good faith or in bad faith.

To prove „Bad faith“ one has to demonstrate that two distinct criteria are met:

a) The officers were aware that the evidence that they failed to preserve was potentially exculpatory or useful for the defense.

AND

b) The officers acted with official animus or tried to intentionally suppress the potentially exculpatory evidence

While it is usually very difficult to prove “bad faith”, it is pretty easily possible in this instant, because…

The prosecution selectively destroyed only bones from the county pit which were definitely classified as human. The mostly irrelevant rest of them is still in custody.

The prosecution must have been fully aware that the release of the bones was illegal under 968.205(2), for they gave them to the victim’s family as bones of the victim

The prosecution through releasing the bones technically admitted that their own theory of the crime, as presented at trial, was wrong

The prosecution made wrongful statements about at least one of the transferred bones, Item 8675 (the human pelvis); Item 8675 had been classified “only human” internally and “not human” officially – the discrepancy was kept secret for 14 years. The release of item 8675 has never been documented – not even internally.

The prosecution not only did never notice SA’s former Lawyer, although it would have been legally mandatory, although he had a pending appeal, so that she could never use her 90-days term to object to the release.

The prosecution deceived SA’s former attorney with a faked chain-of-custody document and therefore intentionally suppressed information about the release of that evidence. The manipulation went to the point of not only leaving out the bone release entirely in that document, but also continuing the numbering with a fictitious entry (which in the authentic original is substituted by another entry under the same number) in order to willfully create the false impression, the document was complete.

The intentional suppression of any information about the release, not only leads to conclude official animus, but also to the conclusion that the prosecution was fully aware that foresaid release was illegal and consequentially, that they knew the material fell under 968.205(2). There is no doubt, that this constitutes “bad faith”

What we see here is, in the sense of Youngblood, evidence that was POTENTIALLY EXCULPATORY and was destroyed in BAD FAITH.

Conclusion: The prosecution violated Wisconsin, Statute 968.205(2), as well as 968.205 (3), and through it Steven Averys legal rights according to Youngblood.
smacc25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2019, 06:44 PM   #13489
proudfootz
old hand
 
proudfootz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Left Coast US of A
Posts: 1,906
Re: Making a Murderer

The latest filing in the case:

https://static1.squarespace.com/stat....06+motion.pdf

proudfootz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2019, 03:48 AM   #13490
lostinthesaus
old hand
 
lostinthesaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,500
Re: Making a Murderer

FROM TTM:

Quote:
Over the past three years, I've been amazed at how many guilters are from Great Britain. The reason I was able to tell this, is they use a very distinctive word. No one in the United States says "whilst." This is a British term.

However, a few weeks ago I read that these P.R. firms who hire people to pose as authentic Reddit members, use companies in India, where the wages are quite low. India was colonized by the British, and they learned a very British version of the English language.

So I think I understand what has been going on. These low wage workers happen to speak perfect English—that is, they speak perfect British English. It all makes sense now.
hmmmm....
lostinthesaus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2019, 09:52 PM   #13491
smacc25
veteran
 
smacc25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: The Green Baize
Posts: 2,969
Re: Making a Murderer

Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus View Post
FROM TTM:



hmmmm....
I said it from the Start...

Both while and whilst are ancient, though while is older. There's no difference in meaning between them. For reasons that aren't clear, whilst has survived in British English but has died out in the US. However, in Britain it is considered to be a more formal and literary word than its counterpart.18 May 2002

Here's a better explanation, those words have always been regional and whilst is the elite's writings, the queen's English so to say and the Indian culture was always speaking the Queens English. Not regional dialects
smacc25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2019, 09:54 PM   #13492
smacc25
veteran
 
smacc25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: The Green Baize
Posts: 2,969
Re: Making a Murderer

Oh and they use it wrong...

5 Answers. I believe while and whilst are interchangeable, but whilst is more archaic and adds a nice flavoring to the sentence. That being said, "whilst" doesn't seem to come up so often in the middle of a sentence as you had it there, so I would use "while" in that case, even though both are grammatically correct.

It's the old What fork to use for what course...
smacc25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2019, 06:54 PM   #13493
proudfootz
old hand
 
proudfootz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Left Coast US of A
Posts: 1,906
Re: Making a Murderer

Steven Avery's lawyer responds to the State's most recent claims:

“The State is thumbing its nose at the appellate court once again,” Zellner told Newsweek on Tuesday. “That court specifically ordered that the merits of the alleged bone destruction be addressed. Rather than follow the court's directive, the State has constructed a convoluted procedural argument that defies logic or precedent.”

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals granted Avery the right to appeal in late February. One of the biggest talking points in Zellner’s follow-up brief focused on a set of potential human bones found off of Avery’s property. The bones have never been tested for DNA, and were given to Teresa Halbach’s family before testing could occur. Avery is currently in prison for killing Halbach, but Zellner argued if the bones are truly hers, they could be used to free Avery, as their placement does not adhere to the state’s original theory of where Avery killed Halbach.



https://www.newsweek.com/making-murd...consin-1383858
proudfootz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2019, 06:45 AM   #13494
corpus vile
veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,362
Re: Making a Murderer

Quote:
Originally Posted by smacc25 View Post
Thanks too Stefanclimbrunner on TTM.



It is worth taking a look again at the topic of the destroyed bone evidence, and the way in which the circuit court by all means should address and evaluate it. Which not necessarily means that judge AS will argue along those lines, let alone think along them.

First let’s take look at what the allegedly broken statute is actually saying: https://law.justia.com/codes/wiscons...ction-968.205/

It is stated in sub-section b): “(b) Except as provided in par. (c), if physical evidence that is in the possession of the laboratories includes any biological material that was collected in connection with a criminal investigation that resulted in a criminal conviction, a delinquency adjudication, or commitment under s. 971.17 or 980.06 *and the biological material is from a victim of the offense that was the subject of the criminal investigation OR may reasonably be used to incriminate or exculpate any person for the offense*, the laboratories shall preserve the physical evidence until every person in custody as a result of the conviction, adjudication, or commitment has reached his or her discharge date.”

Meaning: For the state to be obliged to preserve biological evidence, one of two things must be given. The material must either stem from the victim OR have a reasonable evidentiary value (incriminate OR exculpate ANY person). The latter applies here and the prosecution itself was obviously convinced of the former.

Additionally, because of the special criteria which the state of Wisconsin prescribed in another statute, (https://law.justia.com/codes/wiscons...ction-968.205/), the state basically defined every form of DNA evidence as potentially incriminatory or exculpatory in nature.

The concrete exculpatory value of the bone evidence here results from the fact, that the verdict against SA is based in the most fundamental way on the body (parts) being found on his property – there, and only there; furthermore, that the victim drove to the Avery Salvage Yard yet never left again. KK at trial explicitly denied, many times, that any part of the crime did take place or even could have taken place anywhere outside the salvage yard; LE decidedly denied that the bones in Avery’s burn pit ever were or even could have been moved.

KK several times strongly referred to body parts being found only on Avery’s property would make “the whole case”. That circumstance, if true, would point to one perpetrator and one only: SA. Claiming the entire murder having taken place on the salvage yard was the fundamental basis of the case and the verdict against SA, and it also was that claim by which KK brought the jury to blatantly ignore, that the garage and the trailer are to be ruled out as actual crime scenes.

Taking into consideration the bones from the county pit had been found around the same time as TH’s remains, in a geographically related area and had been classified as human, female, with cut marks and, since the remains on SA’s nearby property were missing around 60% of bone material, it is highly logical to assume a connection.

If those bones were TH’s (and, as we will see, legally that is enough), then not only a completely new, largely unknown, version of the murder emerges, a version opening up the scenario to other possible perpetrators than SA, but it defines another , quite telling, chronology of events, too.

People tend to forget, that the bones from the county pit had cut marks on them, according to LE consistent with a hacksaw-sized blade, yet the smaller parts found in SA’s burn pit had NONE. That implies that, if the bones were to be from one and the same body, then this body would have to have been dismembered at the county pit BEFORE being burned, not the other way round – and this places the murder outside the Avery Salvage Yard. And that not only leaves ample room for a killer other than SA, but also leads to the logical problem, why, in all the world, SA would plant the bones afterwards behind his own house, and the answer to that problem leads naturally to a perpetrator who is not SA and who intentionally planted the bones there.

Moreover: Because the prosecution did not simply destroy the bone evidence in question, but returned it to TH’s family for burial, therefore expressing that they were certain that those bones indeed were TH’s (conflicting with the prosecutions own theory at trial), they inadvertently admitted that these bones were relevant for this case. Therefore the prosecution must have assumed that they were of evidentiary value. Therefore the prosecution must have been fully aware, that those bones were forbidden to be released under 968.205(2).

Another strong indicator for the prosecution’s awareness is, that in 2017 the human pelvis (Item 8675), one of the bones found in the county pit and, as we now know, given to TH’s family as well, was about to be re-examined by LE together with the expert of the defense – to which both the prosecution and the court agreed, precisely because all parties anticipated the examination might have evidentiary value. That examination, as we all know, never took place anymore after AS’s negative verdict.

The demands for evidentiary value under 968.205(2) are clearly fulfilled. The prosecution knew, that the bone material could have been reasonably used to “incriminate or exculpate any person for the crime”

The given law also defines strictly under which circumstances DNA evidence, collected during an investigation, may be released at all. ALL of those criteria must be met, especially this one:

(under 968.205(3)(a)) `(a) The law enforcement agency *sends a notice of its intent to destroy the evidence to all persons who remain in custody as a result of the criminal conviction, delinquency adjudication, or commitment, **and to either the attorney of record for each person in custody or the state public defender.*

This requirement, which would have allowed the legal release of the bones, has been violated too. Therefore one cannot argue, that the release of those bones was not in violation of statute 968.205, since not only was a) that bone material according to the cited statute not allowed to be released in the first place, but the requirements under which b) DNA material, which does not fall under aforementioned criteria, could have been released, have also been violated.

If that breaking of the law is a violation of the rights of the defendant and must lead to a legal remedy, is to be determined by the Wisconsin courts by two different tests, both originating from supreme court decisions – the Trombotta test and the Youngblood test.

To see how the courts decide which of those tests must be applied, let’s take a look at an explanation the court gave in United States v. Bohl:

“We first must determine whether Trombetta or Youngblood governs our analysis of Bell and Bohl's due process challenge. This inquiry turns on the import of the destroyed materials. To invoke Trombetta, a defendant must demonstrate that the government destroyed evidence possessing an "apparent" exculpatory value. […] However, to trigger the Youngblood test, all that need be shown is that the government destroyed "potentially useful evidence." […] . The Court in Youngblood defined "potentially useful evidence" as evidence of which "no more can be said than that it could have been subjected to tests, the results of which MIGHT HAVE exonerated the defendant." Because our review of the record concludes that the tower legs offered only potentially useful evidence for Bell and Bohl's defense, we apply the rule of Youngblood rather than Trombetta.”

In our case the Youngblood test applies (See more: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cg...=law_lawreview), and it is Youngblood that KZ raised. After all, the bones from the county ARE evidence of which "no more can be said than that they could have been subjected to tests, the results of which MIGHT HAVE exonerated the defendant."

The Youngblood test (based on the decision Youngblood v. Arizona) is a two-step test, as we can see, for example, via its use by the appeals court in the decision State v. Parker:

A defendant's due process rights are violated by the destruction of evidence (1) if the evidence destroyed was "apparently exculpatory" and of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonable means; *OR (2) if the evidence was POTENTIALLY EXCULPATORY AND was destroyed in BAD FAITH.*"

The potentially exculpatory nature of the destroyed bone evidence has been argued at length above. The only question left to answer is, if the destruction of the evidence took place in good faith or in bad faith.

To prove „Bad faith“ one has to demonstrate that two distinct criteria are met:

a) The officers were aware that the evidence that they failed to preserve was potentially exculpatory or useful for the defense.

AND

b) The officers acted with official animus or tried to intentionally suppress the potentially exculpatory evidence

While it is usually very difficult to prove “bad faith”, it is pretty easily possible in this instant, because…

The prosecution selectively destroyed only bones from the county pit which were definitely classified as human. The mostly irrelevant rest of them is still in custody.

The prosecution must have been fully aware that the release of the bones was illegal under 968.205(2), for they gave them to the victim’s family as bones of the victim

The prosecution through releasing the bones technically admitted that their own theory of the crime, as presented at trial, was wrong

The prosecution made wrongful statements about at least one of the transferred bones, Item 8675 (the human pelvis); Item 8675 had been classified “only human” internally and “not human” officially – the discrepancy was kept secret for 14 years. The release of item 8675 has never been documented – not even internally.

The prosecution not only did never notice SA’s former Lawyer, although it would have been legally mandatory, although he had a pending appeal, so that she could never use her 90-days term to object to the release.

The prosecution deceived SA’s former attorney with a faked chain-of-custody document and therefore intentionally suppressed information about the release of that evidence. The manipulation went to the point of not only leaving out the bone release entirely in that document, but also continuing the numbering with a fictitious entry (which in the authentic original is substituted by another entry under the same number) in order to willfully create the false impression, the document was complete.

The intentional suppression of any information about the release, not only leads to conclude official animus, but also to the conclusion that the prosecution was fully aware that foresaid release was illegal and consequentially, that they knew the material fell under 968.205(2). There is no doubt, that this constitutes “bad faith”

What we see here is, in the sense of Youngblood, evidence that was POTENTIALLY EXCULPATORY and was destroyed in BAD FAITH.

Conclusion: The prosecution violated Wisconsin, Statute 968.205(2), as well as 968.205 (3), and through it Steven Averys legal rights according to Youngblood.
You should read 974.07. 968.205 wasn't used for defendant's rights 974.07 was.
corpus vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2019, 07:05 AM   #13495
smacc25
veteran
 
smacc25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: The Green Baize
Posts: 2,969
Re: Making a Murderer

Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile View Post
You should read 974.07. 968.205 wasn't used for defendant's rights 974.07 was.
My understanding of Osborne is that a defendant does not have access to DNA evidence post conviction any time they want under Due Process. They cannot be given access to this evidence under US Code 1983 and must follow State laws to obtain this evidence. Osborne has nothing to do with the destruction of evidence.

There is a State process for obtaining post conviction DNA testing, Wis. Stat. 974.07 which is how KZ lost her remand in Dec 2018, because she is currently appealing SA' 974.06 motion.

I do not see where KZ is claiming Due Process violation because they won't give her the bones, what I see is KZ claiming Due Process violation because they returned potentially exculpatory bones that at trial claimed was not even evidence (which the State responded so what if the bones were the victims - much like so what if the key was planted).

I'm no lawyer, but I do not see what the Osborne argument has to do with this motion filed. To me it looks like the State is trying to argue that the defense has no legal right to the bones post conviction so cannot argue destruction violates Due Process, which is not true under 974.07, that the State used to win the previous remand.

In regards to 974.06, the State's argument is pathetic! The State's law is a "retention" law not a "collection" law. Thus, the State arguing it's unreasonable to collect all blood at crime scene is nothing short of demonstration of stupidity! Additionally, the fact the State is able to use underlining doesn't make the rest of a sentence go away. The State argument assumes the two underlined sections are butted together and the rest of the sentence doesn't exist. Similarly, the State's procedural argument is base on the comma within "original, supplemental" not existing. Thus, both of those State arguments are also a demonstration of stupidity!

Frankly, overall, the State's response is pathetic! It is based on misreading, selective reading, ignorance of the law, and inability to cite Legislative Law. However, I believe the Defense has an easier road to travel than the one they picked.
smacc25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2019, 07:36 AM   #13496
corpus vile
veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,362
Re: Making a Murderer

The bones aren't in any way potentially exculpatory as was already covered itt.

State have a duty to preserve the evidence under 968.205 which they did.

If a motion is filed that meets the criteria then the state will test DNA long as it's reasonably probable a different verdict would have been reached if it had have been tested earlier.

968.205 doesn't create the rights Zellner is arguing, therefore state didn't violate 968.205 therefore she's gonna lose. Again.

But we'll see what happens mate.
corpus vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2019, 10:53 AM   #13497
smacc25
veteran
 
smacc25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: The Green Baize
Posts: 2,969
Re: Making a Murderer

Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile View Post
The bones aren't in any way potentially exculpatory as was already covered itt.

State have a duty to preserve the evidence under 968.205 which they did.

If a motion is filed that meets the criteria then the state will test DNA long as it's reasonably probable a different verdict would have been reached if it had have been tested earlier.

968.205 doesn't create the rights Zellner is arguing, therefore state didn't violate 968.205 therefore she's gonna lose. Again.

But we'll see what happens mate.
We know it will fail, because no one has faith in Wisconsin to do the right thing or even apply the Law correctly, you might fool noobs with your posting, but you don't fool me.

At least some on your side can see what's happened/Happening in regard to some legal moves... Your just a bad faith poster who never explains himself or even attempts to explain to others what you know in legalise.

CaseFilesReviewer • 21h
I'm aware of the COA's prior actions thereby recognize the State's first argument was pathetic for a number of reasons including the COA's Order.

The Defense is very much at the whims of the Courts and that is the problem. The Judge has clearly been siding with the State and the State's current response was sent by the State's Attorney General himself. If the Judge accepts the AG's Osborne argument, as the basis of a "good faith" decision the Defense's Youngblood argument goes right out the window.

I also recognize each step of the way the Defense is building a stronger & stronger Federal Court case. In fact, I've called that out a number of occasions. However, as BD has learned, the Federal process takes years and there is no guarantees the SCOTUS will even hear the case. As BD has also learned, if the SCOTUS opts not to hear a case it's the end of the road because the SCOTUS is the highest court in the land. KZ herself made it very clear moving the Federal Courts is risky business due to the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death effectively killing writ of habeas corpus.

Winning at the State level would likely yield a retrial. There's not a shot in holy hell the prosecution would obtain another guilty verdict given what is now known. Frankly, the prosecution wouldn't have obtained a guilty verdict in the first place had they not used jury pool tainting, deception, concealment, and knowingly false statements. The latter, of course, is what I feel is the easiest road to travel.

In regards to baby steps, they're great if you're not sitting in prison waiting for each

Your the reason Lawyers get a bad name bro.. Now kindly go back in that hole, we'll see you when the Flowers again fail to bloom.
smacc25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2019, 04:16 PM   #13498
corpus vile
veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,362
Re: Making a Murderer

Not trying to fool you & haven't a clue what you're on about. She'll fail because her argument amounts to nothing & because the state haven't violated the statute Zellner claims nor are the bones exculpatory. She'll fail because by denying her the Wisconsin judiciary is doing the right thing.

But again we'll see what happens mate.
corpus vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2019, 06:15 AM   #13499
proudfootz
old hand
 
proudfootz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Left Coast US of A
Posts: 1,906
Re: Making a Murderer

Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile View Post
The bones aren't in any way potentially exculpatory as was already covered itt.
^^^

Logic fail.

The discovery of Teresa's bones in any place impossible on the State's 'theory' shows the utter inadequacy of their narrative to map to reality.

Which very likely explains why the State was anxious to dispose of this evidence.
proudfootz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2019, 08:44 AM   #13500
Jackontheturn
stranger
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 3
Re: Making a Murderer

There's nothing in the state's theory of the case that makes it impossible for Avery to have burned some of the bones and dumped others in a different location.
Jackontheturn is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online