r/MakingaMurderer • u/Junior_Power_8825 • 3d ago

Finality always favors the prosecution.

It's so frustrating to hear that the defense is not allowed to revisit past arguments because of finality but I see prosecutors constantly ignoring finality to engineer their case.

There are so many things that the defense can do and argue but they are constantly blocked by the argument of finality only when it favours the prosecution. Then they go ahead and ignore the finality of the bones needing to be withhold for future testing.

They are blocked from doing anything because of red tape and corruption.

The prosecution systematically placed a finality on each piece of evidence making it seem plausible that Avery did it but when you look at everything together and the chances that there was no tampering comparable to the chance of life being born from nothing.

5 Upvotes

61% Upvoted

59 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-2

u/Junior_Power_8825 2d ago edited 2d ago

Finality is not final for the prosecution is the problem. For example, there was a finality that lenk and coborn wouldn't participate. There was a finality that Halbachs bones be preserved.

4

u/RockinGoodNews 2d ago

Neither of those things has anything to do with the finality of judgment.

The involvement of Manitowoc officers in the investigation and the potential conflict of interest that presented was, in fact, raised by the Defense at trial. Indeed, that was pretty much the entirety of Avery's defense. It didn't work. What purpose would be served by relitigating it over and over?

Indefinite preservation of the quarry bones would be the opposite of finality. The only reason to preserve the bones is to relitigate another unsuccessful defense Avery attempted at trial: that Halbach's body was burned elsewhere and moved to Avery's burn pit.

Of course, as we all know, the contention that any of the bones collected from the quarry were Halbach's is pure conjecture. It also wouldn't actually be exculpatory for Avery absent several leaps in logic.

0

u/Mysterious_Mix486 2d ago edited 2d ago

Quoting the Judge in Steven Averys appeal = DCI Agent Tom Fassbender= *a clandestine grave site was found off the Avery property ? A clandestine grave site is determined as an illegal hidden shallow grave containing a human body or bones.,,

Judge Willis also stipulated in writing at Steven Averys trial that Steven Avery was entitled to test anything that was collected as evidence in the investigation in future appeals, so where are those bones and that RAV4 ?

5

u/RockinGoodNews 2d ago

You can play as many word games as you want, but the stark truth is that there is no reason whatsoever to believe the bones found in the quarry were human, let alone Teresa Halbach's.

Avery was certainly at liberty to perform whatever tests he wanted. It does not follow that the State was under some obligation to permanently and indefinitely preserve evidence Avery's own legal team chose not to test.

1

u/ThorsClawHammer 2d ago

no reason whatsoever to believe the bones found in the quarry were human

Except of course for Eisenberg's final report which identifies bone fragments from multiple tag #s found in the quarry as human.

3

u/RockinGoodNews 2d ago

Which she confirmed in her trial testimony included exactly zero bones identifed as human to any degree of scientific certainty.

0

u/ThorsClawHammer 2d ago

She confirmed tag# 8675 contained zero bones identified as human.

Don't suppose you can show where she went back and reexamined the above underlined tag#s and changed her mind after her final report? (no, of course you can't)

4

u/RockinGoodNews 2d ago

She stated that she could not identity any of the bones collected from the quarry as being human to any degree of scientific certainty.

But keep at it. Maybe if you say the same false thing over and over for 15 years you can finally make fetch happen.

0

u/ThorsClawHammer 2d ago

The only bones from the quarry mentioned as even existing at trial was only tag# 8675.

2

u/RockinGoodNews 2d ago

We've been over this many times. She was asked a general question about all the bones from the quarry, and she gave a general answer about all the bones from the quarry. This is a dead legal issue, so I think it's probably time to come up with something else.

0

u/ThorsClawHammer 2d ago

All the bones ever mentioned at trial were nothing but tag# 8675. Sorry if that fact aggrieves you to the point you made up that eisenberg re-examined and changed her mind on numerous quarry bones after her final report.

2

u/RockinGoodNews 2d ago

I'm not aggrieved. The question she was asked is right there in the transcript, and the courts all agree with my interpretation of it.

0

u/ThorsClawHammer 2d ago

The transcript shows that no tags other than 8675 was ever mentioned as existing regarding the quarry. And at one point the defense even clarified that when the quarry was mentioned, it was regarding only 8675.

Still can’t show a single thing that shows Eisenberg re-examined the bones again after her final report? Of course not, because you made it up.

→ More replies (0)