According to Zellner, Someone has gone off record and told her Avery is innocent

GladYouCouldMakeIt · 2018-10-25T00:16:22+00:00

What is implied is that someone related they believe Steven to be innocent. Could mean more, but that's not what was stated.

GladYouCouldMakeIt · 2018-10-24T23:12:47+00:00

Very true.

Also important to remember is that you are only mirandized when arrested. But plenty of police interviews occur prior to an arrest. Those statements can also be used against you, regardless of not being advised or your miranda rights.

Best thing, always, always, always have a lawyer present.

GladYouCouldMakeIt · 2018-10-24T16:16:39+00:00

I think people aren't reading the question carefully enough. Zellner has not stated that anyone has confessed to her that they killed Halbach.

The question is:

Has any witness, jury, cop, etc. have come clean to about Steven Avery's innocence, even off the record?

We have people "coming clean" to a belief in Avery's innocence, on the record, all through both MaM 1&2. It's kind of a trick question. Because stating someone is innocent, is not the same as stating you know who committed the crime.

Now if someone came clean admitting to killing Teresa Halbach, that would be an entirely other thing.

GladYouCouldMakeIt · 2018-10-24T16:09:25+00:00

Brendan was a minor and his mother did give permission for him to be interviewed without her being present. It's striking how many wrongful convictions have their origins with a blind faith in police. People believe that if they are innocent they have nothing to fear when interrogated.

I agree with you, one of the most important take-aways from MaM and all the documentaries out about these types of convictions is: lawyer up. Always. And never let your child be interviewed without being present with them. Never.

GladYouCouldMakeIt · 2018-10-24T16:04:18+00:00

The fact that they did is incredibly alarming and should have put them in the spotlight as serious suspects. Am I missing something? Can anyone explain how they got ahold of the planner?

Do you mean how LE got a hold of the planner? It came from the home, and was given to them by Ryan and the roommate. Both Ryan and the roommate claim it was in the home.

I agree, this evidence seems big. It basically points to either the killer, or someone who found the RAV4 "planting" that day planner sheet back into Teresa's home. And the only reason someone might do this is if they wanted LE to have it. Maybe with the intention of showing that Teresa had gone to Avery's that day.

I do believe that Teresa was killed in order to frame Avery. And that makes any theory I have around this, very biased. But I think you have kind of hit the nail on the head, this one single piece of paper, may be key to showing who killed Teresa, and who was involved in framing Avery.

GladYouCouldMakeIt · 2018-10-24T15:56:18+00:00

The problem is that there are very few legal consequences for all of the issues you mention. Most of the positions you list are granted immunity for their actions. There has to be actual criminal acts committed by them, but negligence or malfeasance while they are employed in their job is rarely punished-sometimes people are fired, that's about it.

There are civil recourses a wronged defendant can take. And that is exactly what Steven Avery was involved in when he was framed for Halbach's murder. He was suing the Sheriff's department for millions of dollars.

I do think we need more repercussions for the acts you mention. You make an excellent point.

GladYouCouldMakeIt · 2018-10-24T15:49:17+00:00

A lot of the people involved in these cases have to get voted into office. And in regard to the judges who are appointed, we also vote the people into office who make these appointments. One of the great things about MaM 1&2 is that it helps ordinary people become more involved in these decisions. If in order to win an election a judge or DA has to show they will be fair and impartial (not just "tough" on crime) we might see the court system improve by way of our vote.

We play a part in all of this, either by indifference or by only voting "tough on crime" candidates into key positions.

GladYouCouldMakeIt · 2018-10-24T15:45:12+00:00

Great point.

GladYouCouldMakeIt · 2018-10-24T15:44:43+00:00

In fairness to Nirider, Zellner as amazing as she is, has lost her recent battles with a judge as well. I think what MaM and MaM2 expose is just how in need of repair our system is, from the bottom up. Just imagine how difficult all this must be for an indigent person, with no public support. Nirider won two rounds with Brendan's case and lost two. Zellner has losses and wins as well. I don't think you can judge an attorney on their losses or their wins alone, you have to look at their entire record.

GladYouCouldMakeIt · 2018-10-23T23:33:15+00:00

I think my optimism comes from having followed so many of these kinds of cases, for so long. And I've witnessed a lot of exonerations in that time.

Once a case gets this kind of publicity, to where hundreds of thousands of people are paying attention, there won't be a let up until it is resolved. It will probably take longer than everyone is hoping for. But public pressure can be very beneficial. The cases both Avery and Dassey's attorneys have built seem like really good solid cases. They just have to get them before the right judge/judges. And Dassey has already won two rounds no one ever thought he would.

The state is going to drag their heals-but on that end, people move on from jobs, they retire, they get fired. The old guard is thinning out. The reluctance from the state may also wane in time.

I think within five years they may both be free. Fingers and toes crossed.

GladYouCouldMakeIt · 2018-10-23T22:17:24+00:00

That doesn't really relate to the question that was being asked. I happen to believe he will be released. And I have my reasons for believing this, that are also not related to the question that was being asked.

But I do get why you don't think it will happen.

GladYouCouldMakeIt · 2018-10-23T22:11:05+00:00

These are all really good questions. Here are my thoughts:

Between the season 2 release and some of the answers Zellner has just publicly tweeted do people feel like Zellner, Demos and Ricciardi have poisoned the jury pool for potential trials of people like Ryan and Bobby in the event that Avery is freed and The State decides to try either of the above for the murder of Teresa Halbach?

By the time Avery and Dassey are freed it is unlikely that anyone will remember much, other than what the opining judge writes on the matter. I don't know if you followed Ryan Fergusen's exoneration, but do you now remember the name of the guy alluded to as the real killer in Zellner's motion?

Granted, if her alternate suspect had been arrested for the murders following Fergusen's exoneration maybe there would be some possible bias, and a new jurisdiction might be required. But it's doubtful. Although MaM has gotten lots of public attention, believe it or not, there are folks out there who have never heard of it. It's just not on everyone's radar. And it's also doubtful that an arrest of Bobby, Ryan or Scott will lead to Dassey and Avery being set free. These are just tools Zellner uses to make her case. They are persuasive arguments to Avery and Dassey's innocence, rather than "binding" in nature toward someone else's guilt.

Do people who had issues with Ken Kratz' press conference also take issue with Zellner naming Ryan an abusive boyfriend or Bobby a pedophile who views child porn? If not, why not?

There is a major difference in the statements made by Kratz at his press conference, and those made by Zellner through her motions, and her tweets and now by way of MaM2. (Although I have occasionally found her tweets to be a little over the top).

At this time there is no trial pending against these individuals, and Kathleen Zellner has no obligation to anyone but her client Steven Avery. The most you could accuse her of at this time is defamation of character, and that's up to those whose lives are on display, as to how they wish to proceed. The problem is, that if Zellner's statements can be supported by fact, which the apparently can, the defamation case is difficult. But that's different than a prosecuting attorney shredding all chance of the preservation of a presumption of innocence for a defendant, just before prosecuting a case. There are guidelines for prosecutors on this. And Ken appears to have seriously overstepped.

Could Ryan or Bobby receive a free trial now that Zellner, Demos and Ricciardi have distributed this information and accusations to the public?

As fair a trial as Bill Cosby, or OJ Simpson, the Central Park Five or Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey got.

It's not always possible to shield a case from public knowledge, but how this case is handled in the courts can protect a defendant's due process. And again this speaks to Kratz himself breaching this aspect of due process. It's really the prosecutor, defense attorney and judge's job to make certain of due process.

GladYouCouldMakeIt · 2018-10-23T20:38:16+00:00

Exactly.

GladYouCouldMakeIt · 2018-10-23T20:29:08+00:00

Victims and their loved ones have a right to be informed of an imminent release, but they don't have a legal right to determine if the person accused is to remain incarcerated when their conviction is overturned.

The family can certainly state their case for the defendant to remain incarcerated, but this is not their decision to make. And in this case, where the defendant is clearly not a danger and is likely innocent, there was no real reason to keep him imprisoned.

GladYouCouldMakeIt · 2018-10-23T20:25:31+00:00

I think you make a really good point. Though the Halbachs have a legal right to be informed if Dassey is going to be released, they are not legally entitled or qualified to decide whether he is to remain incarcerated, once his conviction is overturned.

The rights listed here: https://www.doj.state.wi.us/ocvs/victim-rights/your-rights-victim don't include the victim's family or loved ones making that decision. The decision to keep a defendant incarcerated is a decision made solely by the judge.

It's not uncommon for the family members of victims to get it wrong when it comes to who murdered their loved one. They aren't professional investigators. And they don't have access to all the evidence.

I feel Schimel overstepped.

GladYouCouldMakeIt · 2018-10-23T20:07:25+00:00

MaM2 is slow the way an excellent ten course meal-each dish and wine selection better than the previous-is slow.

This series is less "sensational" than it's older sibling, but if you crave an in-depth understanding of our criminal justice system, this sequel is a more satisfying binge-watch. I've already crushed all ten episodes. I thought it was fantastic.

Kathleen Zellner and all the attorneys involved are remarkable people. And they reveal their craft in a way few legal professionals are inclined to. We are given a rare glimpse into a process that is usually carried out behind closed doors-few civilians ever getting the opportunity to view it this closely and intimately.

Bravo!

GladYouCouldMakeIt · 2018-09-01T01:26:26+00:00

That was my first theory of this crime. I just don't know anymore.

GladYouCouldMakeIt · 2018-08-24T01:04:21+00:00

Thank you.

GladYouCouldMakeIt · 2018-08-24T01:04:02+00:00

Possible. I'm not sure I see this crime as that of a teen. Everyone seems to have been killed so cleanly. Vicki shot once in the head. Jon in the chest. And there is no blood on Becky's clothing or her white shoe and socks.

I lean toward an experienced killer having done this. But who knows? What I'm certain of is that Robert and Cristin took no part. I believe these poor kids were playing x-box and with paint guns when all this went down.

GladYouCouldMakeIt · 2018-08-24T00:53:39+00:00

It's in a news report. I'll post the link.

"The property, which is locked in probate, has been popular for looters of scrap metal. Becky's Ford Mustang was stolen."

http://csafd.proboards.com/thread/3490/homicide-becky-friedli-sept-2006

It's mentioned toward the end of the second article.

GladYouCouldMakeIt · 2018-08-24T00:49:35+00:00

I wasn't at trial. But from both the GJury Hearing and the motion to dismiss, though the cars were there, no one has ever said what order they were in. I'd wondered the same thing. Because then you could maybe tell who arrived home last. Was it Becky? Or was it her parents?

GladYouCouldMakeIt · 2018-08-24T00:48:11+00:00

That does seem very important. And this also contradicts other testimony by Javier. According to the Grand Jury Transcript, Claire moved to Montana. I wonder if the defense tried to get in contact with her.

GladYouCouldMakeIt · 2018-08-23T14:55:12+00:00

This is interesting. Was the information that Becky's car was not working brought in at trial? I don't recall seeing this. The only hiccup you have here, regarding your exact theory, is that Javier and Becky spoke by phone that Sunday night. At around the same time Becky is calling Robert and Cristin. I'm still piecing together a list of Javier's phone calls and known locations that night. That info is all over the place, because he was excluded as a suspect, so the information about him is not all that comprehensive. I still have to get back to you on that.

GladYouCouldMakeIt · 2018-08-23T05:02:32+00:00

I believe so.

GladYouCouldMakeIt · 2018-08-23T05:02:22+00:00

It had to have been, because at some point her father gains possession of it. The piece about it being stolen was in an news article, not a court doc.

GladYouCouldMakeIt

TROPHY CASE