Will truthers finally accept that Steven Avery is guilty? Or will you continue to search for even a single piece of exculpatory evidence?
Just a warning: you guys are going to receive the biggest "I told you so!" from me. It's going to be awesome. I hope it'll encourage you to never try and investigate another case. Stick to what you're good at. Maybe ya'll can write $h!tty Lifetime movies?
Depends what the tests reveal. I'm relatively confident we'll get the right outcome what ever that may be.
And if zellner doesn't fail how soon after shall we expect to see a kusche-esque avery portrait tatted on your back? Be an awesome back piece, no?
And if zellner doesn't fail how soon after shall we expect to see a kusche-esque avery portrait tatted on your back?
I like the odds here. I'll take zellners 17-0 against avery blood in a rav.
Are any bookies taking on avery guilt/innocence?
17-0 but pretty much none of those cases were similar to this one, which she admitted she took because she saw MaM.
There's a site that you can make bets on based on whatever terms and they'll hold each parties money in escrow until the results. I'd be down to bet on this.
It tells me she knows how to pick her cases though. Shes balls to the walls confident so i reckon she found something pretty early on that gave her a good indication all was not as it seemed. The only question is can she prove it.
Ha sweet! link me up, ive never heard of it
Shes balls to the walls confident so i reckon she found something pretty early on that gave her a good indication all was not as it seemed.
Ha sweet! link me up, ive never heard of it
to me it sounds like exactly what a thorough defense attorney would do. No one prepares better which is in part why she has been so successful.
You say random, i say comprehensive.
You say random, i say comprehensive.
So you know what she is testing for and the result she is seeking? I suspect you are underestimating kz if the testing motion appears random to you.
shareReally because I see no cohesiveness to any of it. It seems like she's just testing anything she can, randomly. She mentions various little pieces of different theories that seem to go nowhere. She claims the RAV4 was planted on November 3rd by police but provides basically no evidence other than a typo. Then she doesn't follow up with that theory any further. Then she claims that Ryan lied about the blinker. Okay. Another barely supported assertion and it doesn't go anywhere. She claims that Teresa left Avery's alive but that's based on just a ping which has no scientific validity. Not followed up any further. Etc, etc.
It just seems desperate and her claims are laughable. There's a post on reddit that shows that most of the support she cites for her claims is just flat-out wrong. It's seriously embarrassing. If I hadn't read her various ridiculous tweets or seen her really unprofessional motion, I might have more faith in her. I think it's you who doesn't have reasonable expectations here. We'll find out soon enough.
She claims the RAV4 was planted on November 3rd by police but provides basically no evidence other than a typo
Then she doesn't follow up with that theory any further. Then she claims that Ryan lied about the blinker. Okay. Another barely supported assertion and it doesn't go anywhere. She claims that Teresa left Avery's alive but that's based on just a ping which has no scientific validity. Not followed up any further. Etc, etc.
There's a post on reddit that shows that most of the support she cites for her claims is just flat-out wrong
You're just not scientifically knowledgeable enough, it's known as the Fling a Plate of Spaghetti at the Wall and Hope Some of It Will Stick Mechanism, which is a variation of the Straw Clutching Mechanism, which was patented by Irma Bull-Schiddr.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Or maybe she thought she'd simply get a bunch of free advertising via limelight?
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Lol are you guys for real? SLTC dont do it. Zellner may be a great attorney but there is no why she will able to conclusive prove he didn't do it, UNLESS the real killer comes forward or one of the cops confess. After 10 years I have little doubt that will happen.
shareSLTC dont do it. Zellner may be a great attorney but there is no why she will able to conclusive prove he didn't do it, UNLESS the real killer comes forward or one of the cops confess. After 10 years I have little doubt that will happen.
There's a site that you can make bets on based on whatever terms and they'll hold each parties money in escrow until the results. I'd be down to bet on this.
Lol Jeff knows all kinds of dodgy sites. I think it is referred to as the Mexican Internet.
shareI'll take zellners 17-0 against avery blood in a rav.
Zellners 17-0 has now been debunked...didn't you hear? Their is a list on SAIG
shareI don't know where the "0" comes from, but Zellner herself hasn't made that claim. Her site states that she has obtained 17 exonerations for wrongful conviction, not that she has never lost an appeal based on wrongful conviction.
"As of February 2014, attorney Kathleen T. Zellner has won the exoneration of 17 wrongfully imprisoned men. No private attorney in the United States has successfully fought for the release of more wrongfully convicted individuals."http://www.kathleentzellner.com/wrongful-conviction
I've heard this argument every time I bring it up. Yawn!! The 0 comes from the morons that think Avery is innocent. Just try telling them on www.reddit.com/r/ticktockmanitowoc and see if you're not banned within the hour!
shareIt's not an argument, it's part of the context of a question about the source of the "O." I was simply eliminating Zellner as a possible source.
There are morons among those who think he's innocent, just as there are morons in every crowd, including the crowd that thinks he's guilty. There are morons who scribble for moronic "news" sources, like UpRoxx, specifically Ryan Harkness, who looked at that same Zellner website page and reported that it meant 17-0. From there, it got spread around, moronically.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
Has she ever lost on appeal for wrongful conviction?
I believe 17-0 relates to her record in wrongful convictions - not total cases ever obviously. Is that not correct?
People are arguing all over about this now. It's either KZ didn't say that in their defense, or it stand for only the ones she shot for exoneration and not the ones for a new trial. I don't know. But there is a list on reddit with links to 18 more cases her firm has lost appeals too. Here is the reddit, click on the dates for the link to the case: https://www.reddit.com/r/StevenAveryIsGuilty/comments/53krp1/zellner_cases_that_didnt_make_the_170_list/
shareIt seems to be saying that she has lost cases she was legal counsel on.
I believe the record for wrongful conviction hearings is 17-0 though. I don't see anything that contradicts that.
I mean its just common sense that she doesn't win everything - prosecutions convict in the massive majority of all cases. I doubt there is any defense attorney who has a postive 'win'/loss ratio - guilty people need lawyers too the aim isn't always to 'win' but get a more satisfactory ruling in those cases.
What is a "wrongful conviction hearing"? There are wrongful conviction cases in which she has won 17 of them, as listed on her website. She either won on appeal, second appeal, or retrial. All of these from what I'm reading went to a post-conviction hearing. (I haven't read them all yet).
So, the other cases are wrongful conviction cases too, but ones she has lost.
Ok let me rephrase that. Has a case been heard in which zellner was unsuccessful in having a her clients conviction vacated?
I haven't looked at all her cases but but there doesn't appear to be a client she has taken on for the grounds of wrongful conviction that she has lost. Do you have information that contradicts that?
Well yeah! Her website list all 17 people. Not all are exonerations or vacated, as some people won on acquittal through jury trial. Some even had multiple trials. Here are two right off hand she list. http://www.kathleentzellner.com/wrongful-conviction/
4. Davon Jackson
Davon Jackson was imprisoned for a murder which occurred in a grocery store in New Orleans, LA. Zellner and her brother John Hall Thomas won his acquittal after a jury trial.
13. Cesar Munoz
Cesar Munoz was convicted of the 1997 murder of his girlfriend, Magdaliz Rosario. Zellner and her firm represented Munoz and won his acquittal in June 2013 after his fourth trial but Zellner's first trial. (The first trial resulted in a hung jury, and the second two resulted in convictions but were reversed on appeal).
The conviction was affirmed by a judgedoesn't it say he was aqquited after kz took over?
from the number of people kz has represented in appealing wrongful convictions that lost? Unless i misunderstood what it says about cesar munoz. share
So, I'm not sure where the 0 comes from.
You're misreading me here. The two cases I cited where winners, but not on exoneration. The 17 winners KZ has, most are exonerated, meaning DNA cleared them and they were immediately released, and the others were vacated or went to a retrial.
Now the other 18 cases cited on SAIG, are losing cases which had their convictions affirmed. I cited the Munoz and Jackson cases because they appear to be the only other ones that went to trial, which are different than the exonerated or vacated ones you asked right?
The other 18 didn't make it to any of the 3; exoneration, vacated, or trial. But I digress, I think I understand it now. Out of the (let's say) 35 cases she took on, the 17 that were actually heard she won. So that I'm guessing is why its 17-0. But still, it's like saying we're 17-0 on the cases we won.
Look who uno cites as having the information. Not like SAIG is a biased site .....
Look who uno cites as having the information. Not like SAIG is a biased site .....
She just lost another one...you want me to cite this one too?
shareYou are aware that she didn't get 17 actual exonerations, right? Ryan Ferguson wasn't exonerated for example. His conviction was overturned.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Zellner only fails if she is unable to get the conviction overturned though, she doesn't actually have to prove that he's innocent, she only has to get a 'not guilty' verdict. That being said, a NG verdict won't be easy to get, given all the evidence against Avery.
The man doesn't blink, mom, the man doesn't blink!
"If"?
Why would you even ask that, when you're so sure he's guilty?
I dunno how you can be so confident and cock sure. I think he is GAF but there's about a 40 per cent niggling worry that Zellner (or indeed MAM already) will create enough public pressure to somehow get him out. It will be bogus as hell but its not impossible
shareTrue, in the back of my mind there is a fear that he might get off on a technicality. I don't think so, though. At worst, even if he got a retrial there's more than enough evidence to convict him again.
shareIn my experience: NEVER
Tests will be wrong and such *beep*
To be fair, that works on both sides.
If one thinks LE/prosecution was or is corrupt or SA is innocent, there is distrust of all tests and evidence.
If one thinks SA is guilty, there will be similar distrust of the results of Zs tests and whatever else she can come up with.
'To be fair' - there is nothing fair about what you stated here. There is only one test that doesn't entirely with the innocent narrative outside of planted evidence - kz doesn't have the opportunity to plant evidence.
Inability to entertain a scenario where you are wrong is duly noted.
Nope if Zellner did an EDTA test and it came back positive I would require another test from a different facility but if that came back positive as well, coupled with Zellner's test I would admit something was fishy
shareRight, which was my point. You wouldn't just accept the results of an EDTA test Z had done, if the results were positive. You'd want more: in this instance another lab running the test again.
shareOh ok. So its totally appropriate for you to demand another test - awesome double standard.
shareBecause there should be no reason to doubt the fbi's test in the first place. If you want to take it upon yourself to question and retest it to me thats on you, but I would then question this "new test" and why it gave a different result. One test must be flawed so a third independent test would answer which one was.
shareThere are many reasons to doubt FBI's test. The test was developed, validated, and conducted within the time frame of a few weeks. That is total joke. Biological and chemistry tests are not developed in that kind of time frame. It takes much more than that to develop a reliable test of that nature.
shareHow come if Zellner gets a test result of EDTA that is positive, you would want another test done for you to accept its validity, but when the FBI test showed the EDTA to be negative, you don't want to see another test to back it up? Is that some sort of double standard?
shareWhats hard to understand that if two tests are done that produce different results, then one of them must be wrong? A third independent test would be needed to completelyverify the tests.
shareVisualizing gloating in the future and getting off on it now. Triumphalism even without a triumph.
Petty.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
Visualizing gloating in the future and getting off on it now. Triumphalism even without a triumph.
Petty.
"Visualizing gloating in the future and getting off on it now. Triumphalism even without a triumph. "
This pretty much describes half the posts on TTM (TickTockManitowoc) which constantly gloats over what's going to happen to LE and how SA will own Manitowoc. I read it to hear both sides.
Some people act as if they face personal disintegration should Avery's appeal not give them the result they hope for.
I think Jeff has heard, at least once, a little voice telling him that what he's doing is unhealthy, and he needs to get some perspective. That whether Avery's appeal fails or prevails is really not vital to his life. Hence the "Jeff out" announcement. But that voice is clearly not in control.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
Thanks for the psychoanalysis but the only voice I hear in my head says "Damn, Jeff, you're awesome and well-endowed, bro."
Do I need to go through your posting history again? Hmm. Let's see what you were up to.
And the fact that you didn't understand the sentence "if you approach the Bible with a strictly literal attitude, it is not hard to come to such conclusions" tells me all I need to know.
Actually, all that was needed to know was in your OP -- the fact that you didn't know the obvious difference between the natures of these two parents' relationships with their sons. Which shows you have no access to the meanings of either story.
The way you're trying to save face only betrays you, Jeff. It makes you look even more irrational and petty.
If you take a post out of context it's pretty easy to make it look the way you want. Of course that's why you do it. If you felt confident enough in your position you would confront me on an even playing field, and not resort to such ploys.
You advertise your irrationality again, for example by making up the idea of an "essay." Nothing like that exists; it's just a demonizing fantasy. You've typed far longer posts. And in the quoted post I intentionally repeated the sentence form used in a completely unwarranted personal attack the poster had just typed. That's some of the context you left out, Jeff, in trying to tilt the field.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
Blahblahblah. Dude, you're boring. Big words can't hide your lack of creativity. Dull as a 1,000 yearold blade.
shareLadies, let us refrain from joining in on the testosterone fight! Jeffjeffjeffjeff's seems to be spiking so wait until it lowers and his braggadocio of his sexual prowess simmers down!
🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘
My Memory Is Just A Memory! Oh No! Not the Mind Probe!!
Ladies, let us refrain from joining in on the testosterone fight! Jeffjeffjeffjeff's seems to be spiking so wait until it lowers and his braggadocio of his sexual prowess simmers down!
What big words do you mean, Jeff?
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
Blahblahblah. Dude, you're boring. Big words can't hide your lack of creativity. Dull as a 1,000 yearold blade.
To be fair Badadook is about dealing with grief and the stages you must go through to get over a traumatic event. It really is quite clever how they did it.
shareSet design was surprisingly creepy and effective too, I must say
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Except it's not about the "stages you must go through to get over a traumatic event."
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
Ouch, that's pretty mean-spirited.
At least my insults are funny
Where's all this anger coming from?
"The crunchiness of the corn material was quite refreshing, in the way that scratching one's behind is refreshing. It was a guilty pleasure. It was a spoonful of hedonism and oh how I savored the bite."
Petty.
And out it comes. You're only advertising your own irrationality and immaturity. Not too impressive.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
And out it comes. You're only advertising your own irrationality and immaturity. Not too impressive
Yes.
Nothing human is alien, but it's still a sorry state to get that much zing from announcing that one is gloating over a fantasized triumph based on a fantasized event.
Speaking of size, that's celebrating close to the minimum life can offer. Someone locked in jail, I could see it, because they have few options.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
I note no one's mentioned Slt posted exactly the same type of gloating post over a fantasized triumph based on a fantasized event, which was supposed to occur at the end of August. He did that several months ago.
I thought it was childish when s/he did it then, and I think Jeff's childish for doing it now.
I didn't notice the other thread. Yes, it's childish whoever does it. Much of the passionate intensity here seems to have little to do with prizing justice, or genuine concern about the case per se.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
It probably happened before you arrived here. The only difference is Sltc didn't engage in a ridiculous d!ck measuring contest. Otherwise it was the same.
I confess I don't understand the underlying intensity behind the majority of posts here, beyond a need to be right. But it does appear to be so strong as a feeling of personal disintegration if proven wrong, on either side. It's fascinating and my horrifying at the same time.
Yes. And not only the need to be right, but to be seen as rational and intelligent, as compared to those with either a contrary belief or fence-sitters, who are irrational and stupid.
But because it's a criminal case, it's also about needing to be seen as good. There are the built-in oppositions of right/wrong, guilt/innocence, us/them. But the subject himself is uneducated, crude and none-too-bright, so if you are in the first place considered irrational and stupid for taking a certain view or being uncertain, then by nature you are like the subject, stupid and irrational. You are on "that side." And on that side is guilt. A non-specific guilt, not in the sense of anything criminal. Something like original sin. The not-good side. If this is true, then little wonder there is so much demonizing.
With regard to doubt/fence-sitting specifically, it's striking that it may be equated with believing in SA's innocence, but never with his guilt. It's the definition of fence-sitting to not be sure of either guilt or innocence, yet to my knowledge no one has implied that it equates to believing in SA's guilt. It's always equated to believing in his innocence.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
The apparent drive to be right goes for both sides, not just one. You seem to be missing that, and judging by your posts, consistently lead towards one side, although you avoid specifically saying so.
For 5 or more months, I was a fence-sitter, genuinely so. Meaning I was genuinely neutral and questioned BOTH sides equally. Any time I read or heard anything that seemed odd or questionable to me, regardless of which side it fell on, I questioned it. Everyone else here was either certain he was guilty, or claimed to not know, but ONLY questioned LE, the prosecution, and anyone or anything that pointed to SAs guilt and/or guilt on the part of LE, etc. That's hardly being a fence-sitter, which means by definition being NEUTRAL or unsure either way.
I never see those who claim to be neutral or fence-sitters question BOTH sides, which they naturally would if they that were honestly the case. But it's not.
I only finally concluded that SA was guilty after months of reading transcripts, and listening to and watching many videos, as well as reading many reports. I carefully considered both sides, first.
That apparent drive is certainly on both sides. But I'm not sure the level of vitriol is, though.
My personal view is actually neutral. I've no idea if he's guilty or not, and wouldn't wager either way. And if I'm honest I can't say I care very much. I began posting to Vile, because his expressions of hostility were so extreme I thought I'd like to take him to task for it. Then Jeff, for the same reason. They happen to share the same view.
My impression is that there's more bitterness expressed by that side. Could be mistaken, but it does seem so.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
There is and has been as long as I've been on this board, unfortunately, vitriol on both sides.
CV was a newcomer, and without question soon became over the top with vitriol, and unreasonable accusations due to his personal biases. I regret having initially said he appeared to be logical, as he soon revealed he was not.
I don't think there's more bitterness on one side more than the other, but I will say there is more name-calling than one side, which is borne of frustration, but is still no excuse.
Bernie is one of the rare few here who has usually -- until very recently -- remained consistently civil and open-minded, regardless of his views. Even when we disagreed, when I was on the fence, he always remained civil and willing to discuss. I can't say the same of the others, on either side.
As I said, the problem I have with those who claim to sit on the fence is that they actually don't. If they did, they'd question both sides, but that has consistently NOT been the case in the 9 months I've been here.
I forgot to address your point about a need to be seen as "good," with which I strongly disagree, because I've seen no evidence of it by those who think SAs guilty, nor the contrary by those who claim to be neutral, or not know. In fact, it's almost been the opposite.
One poster who vehemently believes SA is guilty has freely admitted to having committed several crimes in his past. Another very evidently doesn't care what anyone thinks about him. While two posters claim neutrality clearly do care.
So no, that theory doesn't wash, on either side.
I think that speaks to two different experiences. Perhaps it's roughly the same for both sides.
As for the examples, I'd only say that because someone admits to committing crimes in the past doesn't mean they don't want to be seen as on the side of the good. People often affect not caring what anyone thinks of them, but a closer look usually reveals that they do care. You see it in how quickly and strongly they welcome allies.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
.Sorry, but I have to diagree with you on this.
As I've mentioned, I've been an active reader and poster on this board since February, and have never noticed any poster -- regardless of which side they may be on -- particularly strive to be on the side of "good." Although undoubtedly those on either side feel that way, else they wouldn't hold the positions they do, as MOST people feel they are on the side of good and right.
Those who castigate and feel LE/the prosecution feel SA was wronged, and therefore they are on the side of what is good and right.
Those who castigate and feel SA and/or Brendan were proven guilty, feel they are on the side of what is good and right.
This goes for both sides, as to who welcomes allies, however strongly or quickly they may do so.
Several posters here -- Mme and Doggie, specifically-- used to freely respond to me, when I was on the fence. Now Doggie has blocked me, and while Mme hasn't, she childishly refuses to respond to any post I make. I'll let you make the judge of this.
I agree that CV, and his cohort MrToad (or whatever his name is, and if I've got it wrong, it's not intentional), seem to think they're on the side of what's good and holy, and anyone who disagrees in any measure is Bad.
Always quick to point a finger at posters you believe are behaving 'childishly' towards you but never acknowledge your own behavior could be the reason many people on this board no longer wish to engage with you.
I can tell you with certainty the reason people don't respond to you is not because you believe sa is guilty. It has everything to do with your attitude towards people who disagree with you lately.
You've been making some pretty snide remarks in your typical passive aggressive way to newcomers who don't share you're opinion.
I'm surprised you've not noticed the expressions of moral outrage on the board over time. That's all about wanting to be seen on the side of the good. There are greater stakes involved for people than normal because the debate isn't simply about the interpretation of a movie, but about the interpretation of a movie and the real-life legal case it covers, which is all about the question of justice, and justice is about to be served, in some form, because a heavily publicized case for appeal is imminent.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
Aside from CV, and his Amanda Knox cohort, Mr Toad (again apologies if I got the screen name wrong), no, I see no moralizing on either side, except as I've already stated. Both sides feel as though they're on the side of what's good and moral, and are therefore defending It as such. I'm surprised you don't see this.
I suppose what I should say is those on either side believe they are on the superior moral side, due to their beliefs.
When I mentioned moral outrage I didn't specify one side. You jumped the gun a little there. Apparently we both agree people on either side "believe they are on the superior moral side, due to their beliefs." We differ in gauging the influence of that sense of righteousness, based on perceived intensity and rate of occurence.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
You didn't specify which side, that's true, but within the context of which side you've consistently come down on, with the exception of THs cell phone discussion, it's been on the side of those who claim to not know, yet behave as though they believe SA to be innocent, or that LE is guilty, as well as the prosecution.
Yes, I agree that people on both sides fel they are on the morally superior side, for very different, yet most likely genuine reasons, coupled with the all too human desire to be right.
Can you expand upon your last sentence? I can't quote it on my iPad, unfortunately, and don't know why you mean by it.
Within at least recent context of what I've said is this: "Perhaps it's roughly the same for both sides." My view on this isn't fixed.
My last sentence was awkward. For some reason I found it hard to say what I meant. I'll try again. We seem to basically agree there is righteousness influencing how people express themselves on this board. Where we seem to differ is in how intense and frequent we think that influence is.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
You know what else is childish? The way you behave after blocking people.
share[deleted]
It won't matter even if she can prove that it is impossible for him to commit the murder. The first time Avery was wrongfully convicted, 16 people testified about a timeline that would never have allowed Avery to commit the crime. Still he got convicted. The only way to get him exonerated is to find evidence of the real killer. And it has to be hard DNA evidence. I bet you even if the cell phone record shows that the victim left the Avery property live, it still will not help. Either she finds the real killer and make him confess, or she needs to show that the blood in the car contains EDTA. In fact, with the evidence presented at the trial, any sane human being with a brain wouldn't find the man guilty. It is freaking impossible to shoot someone to death without leaving any DNA evidence at the crime scene. Period. The argument that the accused had five days to clean up does not make sense, because from a scientific perspective it is impossible to clean up all DNA evidence from a messy crime scene no matter what you do if the victim is shot to death. There is blood in the car, but no fingerprint of the accused. There is not any fingerprint on the car key found in the room. Anyone with a brain would understand that it is impossible for a car key not to have the fingerprint of its owner on it unless someone wiped the key. It is so chilling to see that so many people don't have a brain out there.
shareThe first time Avery was wrongfully convicted, 16 people testified about a timeline that would never have allowed Avery to commit the crime. Still he got convicted.
It is freaking impossible to shoot someone to death without leaving any DNA evidence at the crime scene. Period
In fact, with the evidence presented at the trial, any sane human being with a brain wouldn't find the man guilty.
Not true. The prosecution showed that the timeline could have worked, although it was very tight. It was a strong alibi but not bulletproof.
I can't imagine anyone who raped and assaulted someone, leaving them for dead, would be particularly concerned about breaking the speed limit on country roads. Nevertheless, LE botched the investigation in many other ways.
shareAny one fact: federal judge has overturned Dassey's conviction so that says the nephew is innocent. Yes the state is appealing and the case is not over, but the fact is that once the case was reviewed by courts outside of the State of Wisconsin, the result is completely different than when the case was handled in the state. To tell you the truth, this case certainly has said a lot about the state of Wisconsin
shareErr, no it doesn't. It just says that his confession is inadmissable and can't be used in court (sorry for my English here). It does not say what he said was or wasn't true actually.
I... don't need to repeat my personal beliefs on this.