What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Making A Murderer (Netflix) (Spoilers) (1 Viewer)

The prosecution has the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that Steve did it. Their case was easier to do that with the evidence showing her body never left the Avery property as someone framing Steve would have a hard time doing that without her leaving the property. With evidence of her body leaving the Avery property, they have a much larger burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that it had to be Steve as it opens the door to many more possibilities. Which is why the prosecution fought hard to claim the gravel pit had nothing to do with her. 
Fair....but is there really a way for the prosecution to prove her body “never left the property”....I mean why would they even say that....and did they....?...did they actually say her body never left the property....they would really have no idea if it did or not when they were forming their theory....I’m not sure I would ever say that wen all you have is so few remains....heck Avery could have found a single bone he missed and then went and chucked over the fence or something...is that leaving the property...I don’t know....she may never have left, but a few of her bones may have...idk

 
Fair....but is there really a way for the prosecution to prove her body “never left the property”....I mean why would they even say that....and did they....?...did they actually say her body never left the property....they would really have no idea if it did or not when they were forming their theory....I’m not sure I would ever say that wen all you have is so few remains....heck Avery could have found a single bone he missed and then went and chucked over the fence or something...is that leaving the property...I don’t know....she may never have left, but a few of her bones may have...idk
Regarding the bolded, yes. Please read the motion NRJ linked to today. It goes into great detail how much they argued her body never left the property.

As for a way to prove her body "never left the property", lack of evidence that her body DID leave the property is the only way they could prove that. If there is evidence her body did leave the property then they can't prove it didn't at all. 

 
Fair enough....as far as “just proving it wasn’t done the way the State said it was done”.....what do you think the parameters of something like this would be....

first....how much detail does the prosecution have to go into to say “this is how it was done”...?

and then second....the defense could sit there and poke tiny little holes in tons of stuff and say “see told you, thats not how it really happened we want a new trial”.....

I’m going to exaggerate this for the point....but lets say the State in their “theory” says...”Mr. Avery burned her in two different barrels before transferring her to the fire pit”.....and then later on....a third barrel is found somewhere and it also has some of TH’s remains in it....now since there is a third barrel....”it didn’t happen exactly the way the State said it was done”....

the third barrel doesn’t really change the outcome......but technically “it didn’t happen the way the State said it was done”.....

I guess what I am saying is that even if some of her bones were found elsewhere.....it doesn’t necessarily mean things didn’t happen the way the State laid out their theory....Avery moving bones elsewhere would just be like an additional thing that happened.....it doesn’t mean they were planted by somebody else.....heck more bones could end up being found someplace else in the area at some point.....it may have been a good idea for Avery to try and spread them around...

not sure if I said all that the way I meant, but hope I made the point....
I think Spock probably answered sufficiently, but my thought was that the argument you're trying to make sounds like material that would be presented in a new trial. Again, they just have to prove that the State's theory that she never left the property, which they hammered on in opening and closing arguments,  was incorrect. If that gets proven wrong, it opens the door for so many other possibilities. Sure, it could have still been SA, but it also could not have been him, and they'd have leeway to pursue those other avenues now, whereas they didn't before.  That's why everyone was so interested in the cell phone signal pings, and the RAV4 sightings before, because any of those things would also have blown the State's theory wide open. 

 
Stinkin Ref said:
1. ok so I get that the state screwed up by giving the bones to the family without asking for permission.....if thats enough for a new trial...so be it...

2. I also get that if the gravel pit bones would prove to be TH's bones that that may in a way not "totally" line up with the States "theory of how things went down".....but let's be honest, there are very few people that actually know "how things went down".....asking the State to completely get every detail of exactly "how things went down" is unrealistic.....there is no way for ANYONE (besides those involved) to know every little detail....

3. but even if the gravel pit bones were TH's.....it doesn't mean Avery didn't do it.....and it doesn't mean the bones were transferred and planted by somebody else in Avery's fire pit....it very well could have been Avery moving the bones from one location to another in an effort to further hide/destroy evidence....

ie: he burns her in his barrels....transfers to the pit to continue burning.....(the big fire that was seen).....when that goes out, he realizes some bones still survived the burning process.....panics and gathers the bones and disposes of them at the gravel pit so they are no longer on his property..... :shrug:
The prosecution has to be honest though (that's a legal requirement).  If they don't know how exactly it went down, they cannot tell the jury they know exactly how it went down and lie about details that aren't consistent with the story they are telling they are confident about.  That's illegal as outlined in the brief and should be grounds for a new trial.

 
The prosecution has to be honest though (that's a legal requirement).  If they don't know how exactly it went down, they cannot tell the jury they know exactly how it went down and lie about details that aren't consistent with the story they are telling they are confident about.  That's illegal as outlined in the brief and should be grounds for a new trial.
What did they lie about?

 
What did they lie about?
The county gave the gravel pit bones to the Halbach family after the trial ended (and kept that a secret for years until it was reveled in the past few months). The prosecution, which represented the county, argued that Teresa's body never left the Avery property, going so far as to make numerous arguments that they know that the gravel pit bones are not Teresa's. If they felt the need to give the Halbach family the gravel pit bones, then obviously they were lying about having knowledge that they were not. If they couldn't tell for sure, then that's what their position should have been in the trial, instead of saying they know they're not. 

 
The county gave the gravel pit bones to the Halbach family after the trial ended (and kept that a secret for years until it was reveled in the past few months).
Did they "keep it a secret" or did no one every ask?

The prosecution, which represented the county, argued that Teresa's body never left the Avery property, going so far as to make numerous arguments that they know that the gravel pit bones are not Teresa's.

It's not necessary for "Teresa's body" to have left the Avery yard for a few of her bones to have left the Avery yard.  As far as what they said about knowing that the "bones are not Teresa's", I would be curious to see quotes related to that.  Eisenberg testified that the bones were "possibly human" but I don't remember much any more conclusive being said about the bones. 

If they felt the need to give the Halbach family the gravel pit bones, then obviously they were lying about having knowledge that they were not.

I don't think that's obvious at all.  Maybe they thought there was no harm in giving them to the family on the chance that they were her's and it would be nice if they were put to rest since there was so little left of her.  That hardly makes anything a lie, especially considering that they were only released years after the trial.   

If they couldn't tell for sure, then that's what their position should have been in the trial, instead of saying they know they're not.

Again, I would like to see anything from the trial transcript where anyone says anything that conclusive.     

 
Did they "keep it a secret" or did no one every ask?

It's not necessary for "Teresa's body" to have left the Avery yard for a few of her bones to have left the Avery yard.  As far as what they said about knowing that the "bones are not Teresa's", I would be curious to see quotes related to that.  Eisenberg testified that the bones were "possibly human" but I don't remember much any more conclusive being said about the bones. 

I don't think that's obvious at all.  Maybe they thought there was no harm in giving them to the family on the chance that they were her's and it would be nice if they were put to rest since there was so little left of her.  That hardly makes anything a lie, especially considering that they were only released years after the trial.   

Again, I would like to see anything from the trial transcript where anyone says anything that conclusive.     
Everything you are asking for is in the memorandum NRJ posted the link to yesterday. 

As for your first question, they were supposed to get permission from the defense before releasing trial evidence. Now it's impossible to new tests to be run on that evidence. 

 
Remember that remains were found three places. The quarry, the sister’s/Daseys’ burn barrel, and Avery’s bonfire pit. 

It was important to argue that the body never left the property because if it did, the logical inference is that Theresa was killed near the quarry, burned there in the burn barrel, and then dumped in Avery’s pit. That theory doesn’t totally exonerate Avery. But it certainly opens up the list of plausible suspects. 

 
Remember that remains were found three places. The quarry, the sister’s/Daseys’ burn barrel, and Avery’s bonfire pit. 

It was important to argue that the body never left the property because if it did, the logical inference is that Theresa was killed near the quarry, burned there in the burn barrel, and then dumped in Avery’s pit. That theory doesn’t totally exonerate Avery. But it certainly opens up the list of plausible suspects. 
To be honest...I think its possible to think she was first burned in the barrels then those remains transferred into the pit to finish burning and being dispersed/spread out a little bit....thinking nobody would notice or something.....then he sees that some bones survived both burnings....gathers them and dumps them in the gravel pit to get them off the property....

not thinking he left much behind in the barrels or the pit.....(this is all assuming the bones in the pit would have turned out to be TH's....we will never know that)....

when actually in hindsight....all of the burning should have taken place in the barrels as that is where you get the most intense/concentrated/damaging heat that could destroy the most evidence....

the bones being found in the pit....don't necessarily mean she was off the property or the burning took place somewhere else.....Avery simply could have dumped them there....(again, if they are TH's)....

 
Last edited by a moderator:
To be honest...I think its possible to think she was first burned in the barrels then those remains transferred into the pit to finish burning and being dispersed/spread out a little bit....thinking nobody would notice or something.....then he sees that some bones survived both burnings....gathers them and dumps them in the gravel pit to get them off the property....

not thinking he left much behind in the barrels or the pit.....(this is all assuming the bones in the pit would have turned out to be TH's....we will never know that)....

when actually in hindsight....all of the burning should have taken place in the barrels as that is where you get the most intense/concentrated/damaging heat that could destroy the most evidence....

the bones being found in the pit....don't necessarily mean she was off the property or the burning took place somewhere else.....Avery simply could have dumped them there....(again, if they are TH's)....
All of this supposition is irrelevant to the current situation.  The court made certain arguments which could be falsified by the evidence the state released in a manner that contradicts the law.  Those facts are the basis for a claim for a new trial, and to me, are compelling.

As Spock indicated, the quotes you are looking for are in the link previously posted.

 
Everything you are asking for is in the memorandum NRJ posted the link to yesterday. 
No it isn't.  I don't see anywhere that they state conclusively that the bones do not/could not belong to Halbach.  The closest they come is saying that the bones aren't evidence because they are unable to determine whether they are even human or not.  Maybe a bit of overstatement, but hardly what's being suggested.  

As for your first question, they were supposed to get permission from the defense before releasing trial evidence. Now it's impossible to new tests to be run on that evidence.

How do they know it's impossible?  Have they dug them up?  

 
All of this supposition is irrelevant to the current situation.  The court made certain arguments which could be falsified by the evidence the state released in a manner that contradicts the law.  Those facts are the basis for a claim for a new trial, and to me, are compelling.

As Spock indicated, the quotes you are looking for are in the link previously posted.
I was merely taking the angle that the defense is making a big deal and the basis for their request for a new trail that if the bones in the gravel pit were TH's that it "opens the door wide open" to other suspects, destroys the State's theory, she HAD to be burned somewhere else and then the bones were planted in Avery's pit and the barrels, etc.....

when in fact, even if they are TH's, it could still be just that Avery went and dumped some over there that didn't burn all the way to get them off his property....I'm not really arguing anything....just saying that some of her bones being off the property may not really change anything with the State's theory other then adding that Avery tried to dispose some of the bones off the property...I could see that being a very reasonable possibility....I will agree that it could be a point of contention and maybe worthy of a new trial, and a way for them to try and implicate others....but I don't think it automatically means he was framed..... 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
How do they know it's impossible?  Have they dug them up?  
That's in there. They presume they were either (a) cremated or (b) degraded over 8 years of burial. And also it wouldn't matter because it would be impossible to tell which fragments were which, as all the possessed bone fragments were mixed up and tags removed indicating the locations where they were found. 

 
Fair enough....as far as “just proving it wasn’t done the way the State said it was done”.....what do you think the parameters of something like this would be....

first....how much detail does the prosecution have to go into to say “this is how it was done”...?

and then second....the defense could sit there and poke tiny little holes in tons of stuff and say “see told you, thats not how it really happened we want a new trial”.....

I’m going to exaggerate this for the point....but lets say the State in their “theory” says...”Mr. Avery burned her in two different barrels before transferring her to the fire pit”.....and then later on....a third barrel is found somewhere and it also has some of TH’s remains in it....now since there is a third barrel....”it didn’t happen exactly the way the State said it was done”....

the third barrel doesn’t really change the outcome......but technically “it didn’t happen the way the State said it was done”.....

I guess what I am saying is that even if some of her bones were found elsewhere.....it doesn’t necessarily mean things didn’t happen the way the State laid out their theory....Avery moving bones elsewhere would just be like an additional thing that happened.....it doesn’t mean they were planted by somebody else.....heck more bones could end up being found someplace else in the area at some point.....it may have been a good idea for Avery to try and spread them around...

not sure if I said all that the way I meant, but hope I made the point....
This post is fascinating to me having read the jury duty thread from a few weeks ago.  

 
That's in there. They presume they were either (a) cremated or (b) degraded over 8 years of burial. And also it wouldn't matter because it would be impossible to tell which fragments were which, as all the possessed bone fragments were mixed up and tags removed indicating the locations where they were found. 
Why presume?  Why not try to dig them up and check them out?  Eisenberg used a nail polish color-coding system to identify different bone fragments and where they were recovered.  Was that scraped off too?

They aren't bothering to dig up the bones because they know even if they are Halbach's there is nothing exculpatory about them.  They would simply require a slight adjustment to the narrative, that Steven moved them to try and further destroy them, just like the bones found in the burn barrel.  They do nothing to negate any of the evidence of Avery's guilt and/or indicate any violation of his due process.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No it isn't.  I don't see anywhere that they state conclusively that the bones do not/could not belong to Halbach.  The closest they come is saying that the bones aren't evidence because they are unable to determine whether they are even human or not.  Maybe a bit of overstatement, but hardly what's being suggested.  
Their intent of their arguments regarding the gravel pit bones was to convince the jury that the defense has no evidence of Teresa's body leaving the Avery property. You in your opinion may think they failed, but the attempts alone are enough to confirm their intent, of which resulted in the ruling against Avery.  

 
Why presume?  Why not try to dig them up and check them out?  Eisenberg used a nail polish color-coding system to identify different bone fragments and where they were recovered.  Was that scraped off too?

They aren't bothering to dig up the bones because they know even if they are Halbach's there is nothing exculpatory about them.  They would simply require a slight adjustment to the narrative, that Steven moved them to try and further destroy them, just like the bones found in the burn barrel.  They do nothing to negate any of the evidence of Avery's guilt and/or indicate any violation of his due process.  
are you a judge? :lol:  Keep in mind that was a summary document. It wasn't every piece of evidence they have. And yes, I'd expect the remains to be recovered in the event of a new trial. I'm not even sure they CAN do that (legally) unless it's for a trial.

Why are you ignoring the fact that they broke a legal agreement? 

 
Can you expand that comment?  I didn't follow that thread.
Interesting read, but the main point I took from it is that jurists ignore the instructions to make a decision based on what is presented during the trial and fill in any gaps with their own assumptions.

 
Their intent of their arguments regarding the gravel pit bones was to convince the jury that the defense has no evidence of Teresa's body leaving the Avery property. You in your opinion may think they failed, but the attempts alone are enough to confirm their intent, of which resulted in the ruling against Avery.  
They argued that because it was true, the defense had no evidence of the body leaving Avery property.  That was true then and it's still true today.  But even if the bone fragments are proven to be human and to be Teresa's, it still doesn't in any way mean that her "body" left Avery's, it means a couple of bone fragments did.  

 
They argued that because it was true, the defense had no evidence of the body leaving Avery property.  That was true then and it's still true today.  But even if the bone fragments are proven to be human and to be Teresa's, it still doesn't in any way mean that her "body" left Avery's, it means a couple of bone fragments did.  
It doesn't have to mean it. All it does is opens up the list of possibilities.

A jury never heard anything about those possibilities as the prosecution successfully limited the crime scene to the Avery property. Avery's new council wants a jury to hear arguments about the possibilities. 

 
They argued that because it was true, the defense had no evidence of the body leaving Avery property.  That was true then and it's still true today.  But even if the bone fragments are proven to be human and to be Teresa's, it still doesn't in any way mean that her "body" left Avery's, it means a couple of bone fragments did.  
Isn't that the whole point?  The prosecution claimed the bones in the gravel pit were irrelevant, but by giving them to the Halbachs after the trial it shows that they effectively concealed their belief that the bones were Theresa's.  The defense is not required to prove what actually happened, only provide reasonable doubt that the case did not happen as the prosecution claimed. 

The bones may have been transported to the gravel pit after being burned on the Avery property (doesn't seem logical), but that is not what the prosecution claimed.  The prosecution doesn't get to construct a scenario and withhold evidence that doesn't fit.  If they believed or knew the gravel pit bones to be Theresa's they could have constructed a scenario explaining how the bones got there, they could have presented their case without explaining how it happened, or they could have run with the explanation they used and told the jury that somehow bones ended up in the gravel pit and hoped the jury fills in the gaps in their story using their imagination, like you're doing.

 
Interesting read, but the main point I took from it is that jurists ignore the instructions to make a decision based on what is presented during the trial and fill in any gaps with their own assumptions.
Makes sense.  I've seen that with local cases I had followed closely.  I even saw a juror stupidly give an interview to a local paper where they admitted they ignored the judges instructions.

 
are you a judge? :lol:  Keep in mind that was a summary document. It wasn't every piece of evidence they have. And yes, I'd expect the remains to be recovered in the event of a new trial. I'm not even sure they CAN do that (legally) unless it's for a trial.

Why are you ignoring the fact that they broke a legal agreement? 
No, I'm not a judge.  I just have opinions like everyone else. 

It says right in the memo that you posted that the state agreed to allow testing in September of 2017.  My understanding is that she had an opportunity to test but needed to do it before filing her appeal.  She didn't, at which point that right was waived. 

As far as "ignoring" the legal agreement,  I would need to see it to confirm that it actually says anything these bone fragments specifically.  I take very little that Zellner says at face value.  I mean, how's battery-gate going?  That was the last thing that was going to blow this wide open.  Heard anything about that lately?

 
Isn't that the whole point?  The prosecution claimed the bones in the gravel pit were irrelevant, but by giving them to the Halbachs after the trial it shows that they effectively concealed their belief that the bones were Theresa's. The defense is not required to prove what actually happened, only provide reasonable doubt that the case did not happen as the prosecution claimed. 

The bones may have been transported to the gravel pit after being burned on the Avery property (doesn't seem logical), but that is not what the prosecution claimed.  The prosecution doesn't get to construct a scenario and withhold evidence that doesn't fit.  If they believed or knew the gravel pit bones to be Theresa's they could have constructed a scenario explaining how the bones got there, they could have presented their case without explaining how it happened, or they could have run with the explanation they used and told the jury that somehow bones ended up in the gravel pit and hoped the jury fills in the gaps in their story using their imagination, like you're doing.
I don't believe it shows that at all.  It shows that they acknowledged the possibility that they could be Teresa's.  The prosecution doesn't have any duty to address every possibility in making their case.  

 
Isn't that the whole point?  The prosecution claimed the bones in the gravel pit were irrelevant, but by giving them to the Halbachs after the trial it shows that they effectively concealed their belief that the bones were Theresa's.  The defense is not required to prove what actually happened, only provide reasonable doubt that the case did not happen as the prosecution claimed. 

The bones may have been transported to the gravel pit after being burned on the Avery property (doesn't seem logical), but that is not what the prosecution claimed.  The prosecution doesn't get to construct a scenario and withhold evidence that doesn't fit.  If they believed or knew the gravel pit bones to be Theresa's they could have constructed a scenario explaining how the bones got there, they could have presented their case without explaining how it happened, or they could have run with the explanation they used and told the jury that somehow bones ended up in the gravel pit and hoped the jury fills in the gaps in their story using their imagination, like you're doing.
first bolded.....giving the bones to the Halbach's is in no way saying they believed they were TH's....you are inferring that.....they are not admitting anything...the family may have asked for whatever they could get to get some closure, her bones or not...they were probably grasping for anything....granted they shouldn't have been given them....but by doing so the prosecution is in no way admitting they knew they were hers...

second bolded....they had this opportunity....the "possibility" of some bones being elsewhere doesn't change the narrative of core of the rest of the case...

third bolded....again IF they are TH's bones....why doesn't it seem logical that Avery would dispose some of the bones that survived his initial fires....off his property?....seems like a completely logical move to me...."let me get these bones that EVEN I can still see in my barrels and my pit.....off my property"....logic 101 to me..?...and the prosecution didn't claim Avery moved the bones...because they didn't and still don't know if they are even hers....so how could they claim that?

finally....all of the bones WERE tested....and none of the tests at that time could find them to be TH's bones....(and we still don't know they were)..so they WERE tested.....the prosecution wasn't hiding anything.....the issue now is that there are new tests that weren't around during the trial that they feel could have made that determination....so they are saying the bones shouldn't have been given away without permission....which is true....is it worthy of a new trial...we will find out.....I hope Zellner really does know who did it and goes to whatever lengths necessary to prove that and isn't just satisfied with "getting a new trial" to keep her name relevant and involved in one of the more popular cases....

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't believe it shows that at all.  It shows that they acknowledged the possibility that they could be Teresa's.  The prosecution doesn't have any duty to address every possibility in making their case.  
I don't know if it's a duty, but if other possibilities leave reasonable doubt, they'll lose.

This is why they argued so hard against the gravel pit bones being hers, as winning that argument eliminated other possibilities. 

 
third bolded....again IF they are TH's bones....why doesn't it seem logical that Avery would dispose some of the bones that survived his initial fires....off his property?....seems like a completely logical move to me...."let me get these bones that EVEN I can still see in my barrels and my pit.....off my property"....
That's one possibility. And there are others.

A jury should hear them.

 
first bolded.....giving the bones to the Halbach's is in no way saying they believed they were TH's....you are inferring that.....they are not admitting anything...the family may have asked for whatever they could get to get some closure, her bones or not...they were probably grasping for anything....granted they shouldn't have been given them....but by doing so the prosecution is in no way admitting they knew they were hers...

second bolded....they had this opportunity....the "possibility" of some bones being elsewhere doesn't change the narrative of core of the rest of the case...

third bolded....again IF they are TH's bones....why doesn't it seem logical that Avery would dispose some of the bones that survived his initial fires....off his property?....seems like a completely logical move to me...."let me get these bones that EVEN I can still see in my barrels and my pit.....off my property"....

finally....all of the bones WERE tested....and none of the tests at that time could find them to be TH's bones....(and we still don't know they were)..so they WERE tested.....the prosecution wasn't hiding anything.....the issue now is that there are new tests that weren't around during the trial that they feel could have made that determination....so they are saying the bones shouldn't have been given away without permission....which is true....is it worthy of a new trial...we will find out.....I hope Zellner really does know who did it and goes to whatever lengths necessary to prove that and isn't just satisfied with "getting a new trial" to keep her name relevant and involved in one of the more popular cases....
Zellner knows exactly who did it at this point.  And I hope it's really pissing her off.   :lol:

 
I don't know if it's a duty, but if other possibilities leave reasonable doubt, they'll lose.

This is why they argued so hard against the gravel pit bones being hers, as winning that argument eliminated other possibilities. 
The bones were tested and it could not be determined that they were TH's.....it wasn't really a matter of "arguing so hard"....there wasn't anything to argue....

 
Stinkin Ref said:
first bolded.....giving the bones to the Halbach's is in no way saying they believed they were TH's....you are inferring that.....they are not admitting anything...the family may have asked for whatever they could get to get some closure, her bones or not...they were probably grasping for anything....granted they shouldn't have been given them....but by doing so the prosecution is in no way admitting they knew they were hers...
If the victim's family has a right to those ashes due to the possibility that they might be the victim's, then the defendant has a right for the jury to hear possibilities as to how her ashes could have ended up there. 

The jury has never heard those possibilities. That's what Zelner is asking for. 

 
If the victim's family has a right to those ashes due to the possibility that they might be the victim's, then the defendant has a right for the jury to hear possibilities as to how her ashes could have ended up there. 

The jury has never heard those possibilities. That's what Zelner is asking for. 
I've never disagreed with any of this.....

I'm not sure what the families "rights" are...I'm thinking they just wanted to get whatever they could.....

the jury never heard the possibilities because the bones were tested and couldn't be proven to be hers.....so they weren't going to go down that "possibility" road for no reason....thats not a knock on the prosecution....

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If the victim's family has a right to those ashes due to the possibility that they might be the victim's, then the defendant has a right for the jury to hear possibilities as to how her ashes could have ended up there. 

The jury has never heard those possibilities. That's what Zelner is asking for. 
What possibilities did the jury not hear?  

 
I've never disagreed with any of this.....

I'm not sure what the families "rights" are...I'm thinking they just wanted to get whatever they could.....

the jury never heard the possibilities because the bones were tested and couldn't be proven to be hers.....so they weren't going to go down that "possibility" road for no reason....thats not a knock on the prosecution....
The bolded is what Zelner is going after. She wants a new trial where the jury can hear the possibilities. 

 
What possibilities did the jury not hear?  
Avery's testimony from day 1 has been that Teresa left the property after they talked. The jury never heard possibilities of what could have happened to Teresa after she left because the defense successfully limited all evidence to the Avery property, and the defense can't admit a possibility that lacks any evidence outside of the defense's own testimony. 

 
I've never disagreed with any of this.....

I'm not sure what the families "rights" are...I'm thinking they just wanted to get whatever they could.....

the jury never heard the possibilities because the bones were tested and couldn't be proven to be hers.....so they weren't going to go down that "possibility" road for no reason....thats not a knock on the prosecution....
I'd have to review the timeline again, but the crux of the argument is that there are new DNA testing methods that weren't available back then that very likely could identify who they belonged to (or at least rule out TH). I think it was when they started down the path of checking into that, they uncovered the fact that the State had effectively destroyed that evidence. 

 
Avery's testimony from day 1 has been that Teresa left the property after they talked. The jury never heard possibilities of what could have happened to Teresa after she left because the defense successfully limited all evidence to the Avery property, and the defense can't admit a possibility that lacks any evidence outside of the defense's own testimony. 
so who was supposed to present these other "possibilities" to the jury at the first trial...?...

 
so who was supposed to present these other "possibilities" to the jury at the first trial...?...
If they had evidence of her leaving the property, then Avery's lawyers were "supposed" to. That's why the prosecution argued so hard that the gravel pit bones are not evidence she ever left the property. It limited the possibilities the defense could introduce to the jury, which reduced reasonable doubt.

 
I'd have to review the timeline again, but the crux of the argument is that there are new DNA testing methods that weren't available back then that very likely could identify who they belonged to (or at least rule out TH). I think it was when they started down the path of checking into that, they uncovered the fact that the State had effectively destroyed that evidence. 
I get that because of new tests possibilities NOW...they want a new trial.....heck what convicted prisoner wouldn't want to try to have their evidence tested with the new advancements in technology if they thought it could change things...?....

I mean when does that clock stop ticking....let's say the bones are in tact and there is a new round of testing....but they again can't prove they are TH's....can they wait for even more technological advances 10 years from now and do it all over again......

 
If they had evidence of her leaving the property, then Avery's lawyers were "supposed" to. That's why the prosecution argued so hard that the gravel pit bones are not evidence she ever left the property. It limited the possibilities the defense could introduce to the jury, which reduced reasonable doubt.
right....so you keep saying the prosecution argued "so hard"....the defense had just as much opportunity to "argue so hard" .....so it is "on" the defense not being able to successfully argue that kept the jury from hearing other possibilities.....nothing the prosecution did or didn't do.....prosecution just did their job...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
right....so you keep saying the prosecution argued "so hard"....the defense had just as much opportunity to "argue so hard" .....so it is "on" the defense not being able to successfully argue that kept the jury from hearing other possibilities.....nothing the prosecution did or didn't do.....
Correct. But as technology advances, new technology can be used on closed cases. So the defense "supposed" to do that doesn't end with the trial. There is now new technology to test those bones, which could produce a different result. The problem is the county destroyed that possibility by giving the gravel pit bones to the Halbach family, unbeknownst to the defense. 

This isn't just an "oh well.... sorry about your luck" situation. Like I said before, and you replied you never disagreed with, if the victim's family has a right to those ashes due to the possibility that they might be the victim's, then the defendant has a right for the jury to hear possibilities as to how her ashes could have ended up there. This has nothing to do with the new testing and not being able to use them on the bones. The county established the defendant's right for the jury to hear possibilities as to how her ashes could have ended up there, when the country established the family's right to the bones because they could possibly be hers. So the defense not being able to admit those possibilities in the first trial is meaningless now. They have a right now. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I get that because of new tests possibilities NOW...they want a new trial.....heck what convicted prisoner wouldn't want to try to have their evidence tested with the new advancements in technology if they thought it could change things...?....

I mean when does that clock stop ticking....let's say the bones are in tact and there is a new round of testing....but they again can't prove they are TH's....can they wait for even more technological advances 10 years from now and do it all over again......
Yes.

 
so not to sound argumentative.... but  "evidence" ....of whatever type....in ANY crime EVER should never be destroyed or given away or whatever from now until the end of the world.....especially any dead remains of victims.....because we never know what advances might come along....unless of course it is slam dunk evidence that convicts I guess...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Avery's testimony from day 1 has been that Teresa left the property after they talked. The jury never heard possibilities of what could have happened to Teresa after she left because the defense successfully limited all evidence to the Avery property, and the defense can't admit a possibility that lacks any evidence outside of the defense's own testimony. 
If Steve wanted the jury to hear that Teresa had left the property after they talked he should have got on the stand and said that.

Even so, as it was, the bone fragments were acknowledged throughout the trial as possibly being human and the defense was free to speculate on the what possibilities that might suggest.  They definitely hit on the possibility that she was killed/burned elsewhere and the bones transported to Steven's pit/burn barrels.   :shrug:

 
If Steve wanted the jury to hear that Teresa had left the property after they talked he should have got on the stand and said that.

Even so, as it was, the bone fragments were acknowledged throughout the trial as possibly being human and the defense was free to speculate on the what possibilities that might suggest.  They definitely hit on the possibility that she was killed/burned elsewhere and the bones transported to Steven's pit/burn barrels.   :shrug:
these are good points...

 
so not to sound argumentative.... but  "evidence" ....of whatever type....in ANY crime EVER should never be destroyed or given away or whatever from now until the end of the world.....especially any dead remains of victims.....because we never know what advances might come along....unless of course it is slam dunk evidence that convicts I guess...
My understanding is it needs approval from the defense first, which should be obvious why. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top