I have also spent hours on the Avery case including reading Jeremy Buting's book Illusion of Justice.
Defence attorneys write books when their client is innocent, not when they have argued reasonable doubt, and said oh well we did our best. It is in fact extremely unusual for defence attorneys to proclaim innocence.
Believing someone is innocent because their attorney claims it is silly. Their attorney is a paid advocate. OJ Simpson's lawyers publicly said he was innocent even as they privately admitted his guilt.
A defense lawyer is in no stronger a position to evaluate guilt or innocence than any other informed people and are biased instead of being objective. What matters is the basis of their beliefs and their beliefs are based on nonsense and their allegations of evidence being planted are absurd.
It is also no casual observation Zellner makes when stating Ryan Hillegas killed Teresa, and that is not defamation in the USA or she would not have placed it on the public record. She cites compelling inferences that can bed made, read the 200 pages already out of her 1200 page filing.
It's not compelling to anyone who is objective and informed. The brief is full of lies and absurd allegations that make no sense and that legally can't be made even if there were a retrial.
All she did was take wild allegations made up by people who decided they want to argue Avery is innocent and spend day after day making up wild nonsense claims. Adopting their fairytales harms her credibility severely. It basically would be like a lawyer going to the blue forum and adopting wild crap Mike makes up.
Under the Denny case in order to accuse a third party at a Wisconsin trial the defense must have the following:
1) evidence of a credible motive
2) evidence of opportunity
3) evidence of means
4) something to establish a link between the death and the person beyond simply speculation.
I. Motive
Hillegas dated the victim in high school and they broke up during their freshman year of college when she was 19, she was 25 when killed so dated others for years after they broke up. He had no delusions that she wasn't dating others.
Zellner lied to try to establish a plausible motive. She alleged that:
1) Hillegas was trying to date the victim again (there is no evidence of this she made it up)
2) That the victim was having a sexual relationship with her roommate around the time of her death
3) That he found out that the victim was sleeping with her roommate and became jealous because he wanted her so fought with her on October 31 over this and killed her thus didn't want
There is no evidence that Hillegas was trying to get her back or wanted her back. That was entirely made up speculation on her part. So even if there were a retrial there is no admissible evidence that could be used to get this allegation before the jury. Worse still there was no evidence of a then current sexual relationship with her roommate. A man who allegedly had a sexual relationship with her in the past alleged that well before the murder she had admitted she slept with her roommate a few times but regretted it and was just platonic around the time of her death. Emails sent out shortly before her death indicated she felt her roommate was a pig, couldn't stand him and was glad she barely saw him because their schedules didn't align. Even if the man's allegations are true that she slept with him a few times many months before her murder and regretted it that fails to establish any ongoing sexual relationship for Hillegas to be jealous of.
Another lie she told was that Hillegas had an on again off again relationship with her that was abusive. There was no evidence of them dating after they broke up their freshman year of college so no evidence of an on again off again relationship. Nor is there evidence of any abuse. Tom Pearce told police she told him she was in an abusive relationship her senior year of college and when she was interning. She was not dating Hillegas her senior year of college the person being referred to can't be Hillegas. Zellner ignored such and lied because she had nothing legitimate to raise. So she pretended that Hillegas was dating her their senior year of college when it was her senior year of high school. To try to get away with the farce she said senior year without specifying college or high school.
So her speculation as to motive entirely flopped and is proven nonsense.
II. Opportunity
There is no evidence that supports Halbach left the Avery property alive let alone went home, that Hillegas visited her as soon as she got home and he then killed her. She simply alleges Halbach left without providing any evidence beyond Steven Avery's self serving claims. Steven Avery now claims she arrived at 2:31, took the photos, he walked to her vehicle, paid her at her vehicle, gave him the materials and left in a matter of 3 minutes and was already gone by 2:35 and that he called her at 2:35 to ask her to return. This is contradicted by logic, witness testimony and it also differs from what he told police back in 2005. His own nephew said that he saw her walking to Avery's trailer and that Avery didn't walk to her vehicle as he claimed. His nephew said he saw her taking photos around 2:45 and that her vehicle was still there around 2:50 when he left.
The defense needs evidence that establishes she left and went home but has none. Zellner tried to deflect from these deficiencies by concentrating entirely on Hillegas and lied saying he had no alibi and could not account for what he did. The evidence she cited for such simply said police didn't ask him to prove what he was doing that week. Indeed during his trial testimony he detailed what he did on the day she was reported missing and the next few days after that. Even if true that police didn't ask that doesn't mean he could not detail what he did. But he would only have a need to account for what he did if the defense can first establish she left and went home and establish that Hillegas was there.
Nor does the defense have any evidence to support opportunity or means to plant evidence. The defense hilariously lied about Hillegas having unfettered access to the property while police were processing it. Friends of the victim including Hillegas were allowed to search the areas adjacent to Avery Salvage they were not permitted on Avery Salvage. Even if he had been allowed on Avery Salvage the notion he was transporting burned human bones and burned property and planting same while police were there collecting evidence and walking around with K9 dogs is ridiculous. Only people who are too biased to be rational/realistic would consider such even remotely possible.
III & IV Means plus something more
The defense completely ignored the evidence that proved the victim was shot at least 2 times in the head. There is no evidence of Hillegas having access to a gun. The defense speculated the victim was hit over the head and strangled. It is not speculation but proven fact that the victim was shot at least 2 times in the head. It makes no difference whether those 2 shots killed her or they were fired to make sure she was dead, they exist. The defense ignored this issue because there was no material to even try distorting to pretend he had a gun.
They allege Hillegas burned her body and property but have no evidence of Hillegas having any fires anywhere. In contrast Steven Avery had fires on the very day she visited and in the ashes of those fires were found her remains and the charred remnants of her clothing and belongings. Before such burned evidence was found Avery was expressly asked multiple times to describe what he did that day and he left out the fires which was the thing he did for the longest period of time so it is not credible he innocently forgot. In his last interview with police he was expressly asked the last time he had any fires and he lied saying a week prior to Halbach's visit. The defense can't find anything even remotely similar against Hillegas.
In one news video it appears Hillegas has something on his hands but it is much too unclear to tell. Avery apologists speculated that they were scratches. These marks are not visible in other video and he drew on his hands so it could be ink in addition to just being grainy video. zellner got an expert to look at the grainy video and he decided the marks were scratches though no reputable scientist woudl make such an assessment from such video. worse still he assessed the marks were consistent with scratches from fingernails. At the end of the day this is just speculation that is no more useful than speculation from Sutherst about the mantle.
Even if he had scratches on his hands that alone would not establish his as a suspect anyway but they don't even have any proof he had scratches.
The defense found nothing that would permit them accusing Hillegas in a court and should have redacted his name in the court filings. He has a strong case for defamation if he chooses to sue.
I could spend all day tearing apart the lies and nonsense the defense resorted to and why such crap has no ability at all to undermine Avery's conviction. The evidence conclusively proves Avery's guilt those who doubt his guilt do so not because of any flaws in the evidence but rather because they are ignorant of the facts and evidence or if fully informed then because of their own mental makeup prevents them from being rational and objective.
I posted a summary of the evidence against Avery in the off topic section it is not yet approved but once it is I welcome you to read it and debate the case there.
Like Jeremy Bamber and Mark Lundy, Steve has a cast iron alibi in the matter of phone calls from his property he made when Teresa was already visiting Hillegas.
Avery had no phone alibi that helps him. He didn't use his phone during the time police say the crime was committed. He didn't use his phone between 2:35 and 4:35 and his claim of why he made the 4:35 call to Halbach makes zero sense.
Jeremy's claims about the phone don't help him either they hurt him severely establishing him as a liar. There is no proof that Nevill called him as he claimed. That is not airtight in any objective sense.
Lundy's call was not at the time of the murder so can't prove him innocent and provide an ironclad alibi. If they were killed too soon after the call for him to be able to get there to commit the crimes because he was too far away THEN it would provide an ironclad alibi.
I am happy to debate with facts till the cows come home.
On Bamber, I would refer you to MikeG's best attempt, as architectural draughtsman, to get bullets in the correct flesh trajectory, to Nevill while still in the bedroom. Mike is a bright guy, but seems unwilling to concede he proved it was impossible for Nevill to be shot inside the bedroom. This is all on the IA thread.
It is quite possible for him to have been shot in the bedroom but it is not possible to be shot and yet bullets or casings to get outside the bedroom unless moved by a human.
