18 years I think he paid for the cat.

It was both.

I was really impressed by all your comments thus far and agreed with all of them. You seem like a very intelligent person but this is surely beneath you. Why must you insult Canadians with this obviously very ignorant comment? What have Canadians done to you and why do they have anything to do with this? Just stick to the conversation at hand and leave your narrow minded views about Canadians out it, it is extremely irrelevant.

Cali,

From what I understand, the new appellate lawyer is pretty strong, has a great record with these kinds of cases; and that is because she only takes ones she can win.

We don’t “know” what she’s got to work with, but there are multiple implications that the new defensive attack on the conviction will involve a combination of what we saw in the documentary (denial of Due Process) and substantial evidence that someone else is a much more plausible suspect. It seems that the police developed tunnel
vision early on and dismissed alternative explanations (including some from
other law enforcement) in lieu of nailing Avery— strange parallel with the first time around.

The only thing that ever helps people who have been
wrongfully convicted post-judicial review (after the appeals) is solid science unavailable at the time or trial, combined with significant public pressure on
elected officials to correct the mistake. The only mechanisms by which he can be released is:

1. Executive relief — the Governor would have to grant a form of clemency (pardon or the less desirable commutation of the sentence) “in the interest of justice”. The current Gov. will be slow to act here because he was publicly supportive of Avery after the release from the first case, but ran from him as soon as the new charge popped up, publicly stating he would remain hands off;

2. File an Appeal through the state appellate court in Madison (which Avery filed himself without
assistance from an attorney or spell-check) alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, and a litany of inappropriate procedural events by the trial court
judge, the jury itself, and prosecutorial misconduct. These are phenomenally improbable based upon
past rulings, and at best would still only vacate the conviction, leaving him open to a retrial; should the county prosecutor choose to do so. In this situation,
retrial would be a circus of O.J. proportions and seems unlikely to happen, except for the fact that the county can hardly afford to have him cleared of
these charges, because they would be bankrupted by what would happen next.

3. Be granted a new trial (without the appeals court
vacating the conviction) based upon “new evidence”, but that has to come from the trial court. New trials themselves are pretty rare, and admission
of new evidence was unheard of until fairly recently, but remains a very high threshold to clear for a trial de novo.
Consider that the people making that decision have absolutely nothing to gain from that and a great deal to lose: The expense alone is the usual reason for denial, but here there are substantial possibilities
that the retrial would uncover some ugly things about the office of the prosecution and the sheriff. Further, anyone who knew, or should have known about any conspiracy to deny these guys of Due Process would open them to civil suits and criminal charges as well as federal prosecution.

This case has a unique distinction of also leaving (in
addition to police and prosecution) the defense (trial) attorney and his investigator open to disbarment and civil and criminal charges–and in my opinion a well-deserved slow and painful public death for abdicating the most important and fundamental responsibility of criminal proceedings in our legal
system.

I hope the newest lawyer (Kathleen Zellner) is the hot shot she appears to be, and that at a minimum these guys get Due Process. I remain agnostic about whether “he did it” (and from a legal perspective find it irrelevant at this point) but deeply committed to the fact that he was denied anything close to fairness.

So what can we do? Stay on top of the process, bring public pressure to make this a correct administration of justice–whatever that may
be.

Mae, certainly understand your position, even if it might be better to get all the information, rather than your blanket indictment of the people being based upon a single documentary. Not saying I disagree with your conclusion, just that knowing more is better.
Where I might differ is your inclusion of the Constitution in your disgust; I fail to see any of this as a constitutional failure. Clearly there was a breakdown when people charged with upholding fail; either inadvertently or with malicious intent. Really makes no difference to me about the intent. If that was Incompetency by “good people”, they need a new job that comes with a paper hat and closer supervision.

If hate mail, dog poop, and public humiliation is your version of justice in this case, or even just a karmic reckoning, I hope there is more room on your list of people who are ” the face of what’s wrong with society”.