Re: Making a Murderer updates
I think there are two different questions here. The first is whether Zellner has uncovered either new evidence that warrants a new trial, or inappropriate conduct by the prosecution (typically, failure to produce possible exculpatory evidence) to warrant a new trial.
The second is whether Steven Avery is guilty or not.
With respect to the first question, I think Zellner has done an admirable job. The issue of "new evidence" is a bit tricky in my mind. I don't know that a lot of the forensic test results she's produced are "new" so much as they just weren't done by either the prosecution or defense in the original trial. Does that constitute ineffective assistance of counsel? Maybe, but I would guess that there are cases out there where courts have told convicted individuals that your failure to conduct an available test at the time of your original trial doesn't mean that we're just going to let you out because you want to do the test now and it's positive for you.
I think she is on firmer ground with respect to the prosecution not disclosing all the evidence ahead of time (don't hold your breath about any prosecutors going to jail for that), so I wouldn't be surprised if she gets a new trial on that basis alone.
On Avery's guilt or innocence, I'm still not so sure that she, Avery, and some of you are right.
We do know Halbach was on his property. We do know her key was found in his house. His blood is in her vehicle, as is hers. The vehicle is on his property. At least some of her bones were found on his property.
I understand there are theories about the conspiracy to frame Avery, primarily due to the lawsuit from the other imprisonment. But what's troubled me about those conspiracy theories is this. First, they involve a number of people, not just two, or possibly three.
Second, Zellner thinks there is evidence that the boyfriend was involved. She thinks there is evidence that Tadych and/or Bobby Dassey were involved. And, of course, she thinks the police were involved.
So is the theory that all or some of these parties somehow coordinated their conspiracy? Did they all independently happen to decide to frame Steven Avery for this crime? I could believe that a single person like Tadych, for example, committed the crime and independently tried to frame Avery without the involvement of all of these other parties. I don't see how a conspiracy of that many disparate and unrelated parties could, on the spur of the moment, carry out such a conspiracy. More importantly, I don't see evidence that one single party, like Tadych, like Hillegas, or like the police department, had access to all the moving parts to carry out the framing.
That's just what troubles me.
I think there are two different questions here. The first is whether Zellner has uncovered either new evidence that warrants a new trial, or inappropriate conduct by the prosecution (typically, failure to produce possible exculpatory evidence) to warrant a new trial.
The second is whether Steven Avery is guilty or not.
With respect to the first question, I think Zellner has done an admirable job. The issue of "new evidence" is a bit tricky in my mind. I don't know that a lot of the forensic test results she's produced are "new" so much as they just weren't done by either the prosecution or defense in the original trial. Does that constitute ineffective assistance of counsel? Maybe, but I would guess that there are cases out there where courts have told convicted individuals that your failure to conduct an available test at the time of your original trial doesn't mean that we're just going to let you out because you want to do the test now and it's positive for you.
I think she is on firmer ground with respect to the prosecution not disclosing all the evidence ahead of time (don't hold your breath about any prosecutors going to jail for that), so I wouldn't be surprised if she gets a new trial on that basis alone.
On Avery's guilt or innocence, I'm still not so sure that she, Avery, and some of you are right.
We do know Halbach was on his property. We do know her key was found in his house. His blood is in her vehicle, as is hers. The vehicle is on his property. At least some of her bones were found on his property.
I understand there are theories about the conspiracy to frame Avery, primarily due to the lawsuit from the other imprisonment. But what's troubled me about those conspiracy theories is this. First, they involve a number of people, not just two, or possibly three.
Second, Zellner thinks there is evidence that the boyfriend was involved. She thinks there is evidence that Tadych and/or Bobby Dassey were involved. And, of course, she thinks the police were involved.
So is the theory that all or some of these parties somehow coordinated their conspiracy? Did they all independently happen to decide to frame Steven Avery for this crime? I could believe that a single person like Tadych, for example, committed the crime and independently tried to frame Avery without the involvement of all of these other parties. I don't see how a conspiracy of that many disparate and unrelated parties could, on the spur of the moment, carry out such a conspiracy. More importantly, I don't see evidence that one single party, like Tadych, like Hillegas, or like the police department, had access to all the moving parts to carry out the framing.
That's just what troubles me.
Last edited:
