Making a murder

[Coleman]

Brendan Dassey's sh!tbag lawyer arrested for stalking:

http://www.vulture.com/2018/07/former-making-a-murderer-lawyer-arrested-for-stalking.html

That guy was truly the worst.

[Benny B]

Just finished the 2nd season (or "Part 2" as Netflix is calling it), and reflected on an earlier post:

According to my defense lawyer buddy (who's more familiar with KZ than he'd care to be), the evidence on the CD - an examination of a computer in the Dassey house - is not likely to contain anything that's going to be explicitly exculpatory, which is basically Avery's last hope at this point.  However, he also mentioned that Zellner is probably aware of the CD's irrelevance, and wouldn't waste her time on it unless it was strategic, i.e. on its own, it's worthless, but it could be a step in helping reveal or corroborate a greater theory.

He also said this has devolved into one big cluster that's going to soon be impossible for even seasoned professionals to follow, let alone judges and LEO's who typically go an entire career without seeing a case anywhere close to this.

That said, Netflix has essentially placed a big bet that isn't going to pay off unless Avery gets sprung (or at least if there isn't some sort of revelation that rises beyond yawn-worthy in Season 2).  Not to mention the hit that Zellner's ego is going to take if she can't prevail (this case might be the end of Zellner's career, one way or the other).

I'm still in the camp that believes Avery's guilt/innocence is irrelevant since the legal system failed and therefore, he should be released.  But I'm not optimistic given said downward spiral of complexity which is going to basically confuse people to the point where rule of law can only yield to conventional wisdom (i.e. he's guilty).

Turns out my buddy was right on the CD... nothing exculpatory, but potentially valuable as a piece of a greater puzzle (or theory).  Turns out that I was also right on Zellner's ego.  Where I was wrong was the bet paying off for Netflix... Season 2 stands on its own and even sets the stage for the final part of the trilogy... which I'm guessing will be another year or two.

What I found most enlightening about Season 2 was that all these people who bashed the first season and rebutted everything and screamed that it was completely one-sided all declined to participate - or make their side of the story heard - in Season 2.  Candidly, Season 2 was a lot less one-sided than Season 1 because of the media clips they included from Schimel, Kratz, etc. that did give the other side of the story (or at least bits of it).  It's painfully clear that Moira and Laura wanted to present this as a more balanced documentary with examination and perspective from both sides, but I find it extremely curious that one side adamantly declined to participate.

Personally, I don't think anyone who lived in Wisconsin during the Halbach murder is capable of being objective.  Kratz poisoned not just a juror pool but also the general public with that press conference he held, and from there, the entire system was rigged against Avery.  Having grown up in semi-rural Wisconsin, I am well familiar with the concept of cities/counties having a "black sheep" or "troublemaker" family, and I am well familiar with how these people are thought of as an embarrassment to the community and the lengths that people might go to in order to run them out of town.  The thought that law enforcement may have conspired with certain community members seems far-fetched on the surface, but it's also a theory that's extremely plausible given how LEO's - when faced with prison time themselves - will go to very extreme lengths to keep themselves out of trouble (hint: former cops who end up in prison usually don't fare too well).

That said, I'm still in the same camp where I think Avery's guilt/innocence is irrelevant... while the additional testing doesn't necessarily exonerate Avery, it does show that he was convicted on a prosecution theory that turns out to be complete bullshiite, and the State is taking this position that the end (i.e. the conviction) justifies the means.  Which wouldn't necessarily be a horrible thing in utilitarian society if not for the existence of forensic evidence that completely refutes the prosecution's case.

Bottom line, take away conjecture that LEO conspired or the alternate killer speculation....if the State and Manitowoc County all want this to go away, they should confront the matter head-on and retry Avery instead of letting Zellner dismantle their entire case, piece by piece; because by allowing the latter to happen, not only does the Halbach family have to continue to relive this horrific tragedy, every day that goes by decreases the State's chance of prevailing in a retrial.  Avery's conviction is going to be vacated as soon as the experimental testing that Zellner is doing becomes recognized and universally accepted by the courts.

Zellner says repeatedly that she won't quit until Avery goes free, but I will bet a year's supply of Arby's that she tucks tail and scatters the very second the gavel hits when the retrial rules in favor of the State.

[jsglow]

Chick and I are about half way through Season 2.  Zellner has a helluva ego but she sure seems good at what she does.  Of course the entire film is her postulating about what might of happened and what the prosecution might have gotten wrong.  Of course she isn't bound by anything in the film regarding rules of evidence and isn't subject to any cross.  So the reality is that this is nothing more than an expensive, sophisticated version of defense counsel out on the courthouse steps proclaiming their client's innocence before the hungry news cameras.

I continue to feel sorry for the families involved.  Portrayed of course are the Avery clan.  Who doesn't feel sorry for the two mothers here?  But the Halbachs are victims even more so.  And after all these years there's likely nothing that could be new and fresh enough to overturn a lawful conviction.

Thar said, I still think that what they did to Dassey during the interrogation was unconscionable and I largely agree with what I know about that original order that threw out his conviction.       

[Spotcheck Billy]

Chick and I are about half way through Season 2.  Zellner has a helluva ego but she sure seems good at what she does.  Of course the entire film is her postulating about what might of happened and what the prosecution might have gotten wrong.  Of course she isn't bound by anything in the film regarding rules of evidence and isn't subject to any cross.  So the reality is that this is nothing more than an expensive, sophisticated version of defense counsel out on the courthouse steps proclaiming their client's innocence before the hungry news cameras.

I continue to feel sorry for the families involved.  Portrayed of course are the Avery clan.  Who doesn't feel sorry for the two mothers here?  But the Halbachs are victims even more so.  And after all these years there's likely nothing that could be new and fresh enough to overturn a lawful conviction.

Thar said, I still think that what they did to Dassey during the interrogation was unconscionable and I largely agree with what I know about that original order that threw out his conviction.       

Too bad that was reversed on appeal.

[warriorchick]

Too bad that was reversed on appeal.

He's still not out of prison, though.

[🏀]

Chick and I are about half way through Season 2.  Zellner has a helluva ego but she sure seems good at what she does.  Of course the entire film is her postulating about what might of happened and what the prosecution might have gotten wrong.  Of course she isn't bound by anything in the film regarding rules of evidence and isn't subject to any cross.  So the reality is that this is nothing more than an expensive, sophisticated version of defense counsel out on the courthouse steps proclaiming their client's innocence before the hungry news cameras.
   

This is what Zellner does with her cases, Avery is most famous. She also feeds true crime podcasts, 20/20 and the like crazy theories of her clients to question their convictions.

[wadesworld]

https://www.newsweek.com/making-murderer-steven-avery-wins-appeal-second-trial-1343442

[Jay Bee]

https://www.newsweek.com/making-murderer-steven-avery-wins-appeal-second-trial-1343442

Non-issue, hey?

He's a dirty murderer. Don't see this going anywhere.

[Benny B]

Non-issue, hey?

He's a dirty murderer. Don't see this going anywhere.

Oh, it's going somewhere.   Right to Netflix's bottom line.   Third installment of the series is going to be pure gold. 

[Sir Lawrence]

Not sure if I should park this here or in the "which smoker should I buy" thread:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ZellnerLaw/status/1171103257059614720

[StillAWarrior]

Not sure if I should park this here or in the "which smoker should I buy" thread:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ZellnerLaw/status/1171103257059614720

They're looking for the "real killer"?  Are they suggesting that the same person(s) that killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman also killed Teresa Halbach?  Wouldn't it be crazy if OJ finally solved this and claimed the reward?  I hear he could use the money.

[wadesworld]

Not sure if I should park this here or in the "which smoker should I buy" thread:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ZellnerLaw/status/1171103257059614720

Hasn't Zellner Tweeted out that they know who the "real killer" is at least once before?  If they already know who the "real killer" is...why are you offering up a $100,000.00 reward to find the "real killer?"

[Spotcheck Billy]

Hasn't Zellner Tweeted out that they know who the "real killer" is at least once before?  If they already know who the "real killer" is...why are you offering up a $100,000.00 reward to find the "real killer?"

Because $100K might influence someone enough to come forward and testify?
Maybe Zellner recently learned family of the "real killer" is in financial difficulties.

[🏀]

Not sure if I should park this here or in the "which smoker should I buy" thread:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ZellnerLaw/status/1171103257059614720

Cue the Price is Right 'wrong trombone'

[warriorchick]

Cue the Price is Right 'wrong trombone'

https://www.youtube.com/v/9Jz1TjCphXE

[Benny B]

Because $100K might influence someone enough to come forward and testify?
Maybe Zellner recently learned family of the "real killer" is in financial difficulties.

If you read between the lines, Zellner's working theory presumes both 1) Avery is innocent and 2) more than one person was involved in or has first-hand knowledge of, Halbach's murder.  As I've said before, a crime where two or more persons are involved is exponentially more likely to be solved than if only one party acted alone.

From Day 1, Zellner has played the "our investigation is about to uncover new evidence" card... while this is likely a bluff (at least in the short term*), the intent (read: hope) is to get one of the parties to crack and perhaps turn on the other(s), whether motivated by leniency, guilt, or otherwise.  In other words, if someone acted alone - e.g. the Dassey brother - in Halbach's murder, he's not going to crack under fear or threat of "new evidence" because he doesn't have to worry about someone else keeping their mouth shut... on the other hand, if the Dassey brother and stepfather were both involved (or one knows what the other did), either "new evidence" or $100,000 could be enough motivation to get one to crack.

* Zellner may also be playing the long-game, i.e. thinking that eventually the evidence will be found, even if it takes decades, but is bluffing now in the hopes of speeding things up.

Candidly, it's unlikely - given the facts and circumstances of the case - that one party acted alone, be that Avery or someone else.  It's also the only hope Zellner has... which would make one of the more popular alternative theories, the "travelling serial killer," Zellner's (and Avery's) worst nightmare. 

[Benny B]

Maybe Zellner recently learned family of the "real killer" is in financial difficulties.

Teal perhaps; perhaps not.

Also possible - Zellner has narrowed in on the real killer(s), or at least the possibilities of who else may be involved, and the $100,000 may be a drop in the bucket compared to the likelihood of recovery in a civil case, i.e., whoever may be involved - either in the murder or the cover-up - can not only be sued, but any judgment against them is likely collectible.  In other words, this could be a terrific investment... a no-risk call option.

[Silkk the Shaka]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/notable-wisconsin-inmate-allegedly-confesses-making-murderer-killing-n1058061

Could be a hoax by a guy looking for some quick fame, but a very interesting development nonetheless

[Billy Hoyle]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/notable-wisconsin-inmate-allegedly-confesses-making-murderer-killing-n1058061

Could be a hoax by a guy looking for some quick fame, but a very interesting development nonetheless

It happened for Andy Dufrense so maybe it's happening once again?

[Benny B]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/notable-wisconsin-inmate-allegedly-confesses-making-murderer-killing-n1058061

Could be a hoax by a guy looking for some quick fame, but a very interesting development nonetheless

Meh... that would be too easy and isn't exactly inline with Zellner's narrative.  She seems to have been baiting someone tangentially involved with something to lose, not a perp-confession from some schmo already in the clink.

Although, with that being said, if said schmo was one of multiple parties involved and it was actually his/her accomplices on the outside still roaming free who Zellner was attempting to bait, this would be a M Night Shyamalan kind of twist.

[Mr. Nielsen]

It happened for Andy Dufrense so maybe it's happening once again?

[🏀]

Meh... that would be too easy and isn't exactly inline with Zellner's narrative.  She seems to have been baiting someone tangentially involved with something to lose, not a perp-confession from some schmo already in the clink.

Although, with that being said, if said schmo was one of multiple parties involved and it was actually his/her accomplices on the outside still roaming free who Zellner was attempting to bait, this would be a M Night Shyamalan kind of twist.

Zellner followed a similar narrative to free a client for a murder of a classmate. I expect her to go as dirty as possible to win a PR battle over her reputation.

[Benny B]

Zellner followed a similar narrative to free a client for a murder of a classmate. I expect her to go as dirty as possible to win a PR battle over her reputation.

When someone goes free, it typically means they weren't guilty.  That's a good thing, no?

[Silkk the Shaka]

When someone goes free, it typically means they weren't guilty.  That's a good thing, no?

I would certainly think so

[Billy Hoyle]

When someone goes free, it typically means they weren't guilty.  That's a good thing, no?

In most cases.  However, there are other cases where there was prosecutorial misconduct, admission of impermissible evidence or some other issue that causes the verdict to be overturned and a mistrial declared, requiring a new trial.